sample case study about bullying in school

ITS PSYCHOLOGY

Learn All About Psychology

• Neuro Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Research Psychology
• Mental Disorder
• Personality Disorder
• Relationship
• Social Skills

19 Cases of Bullying among Real and Overwhelming Youth

Table of Contents

Last Updated on April 13, 2023 by Mike Robinson

We present 19 cases of real bullying and cyberbullying characterized by their fatal outcomes and the lack of training of education professionals.  The cases and stories of bullying in schools and outside them with cyberbullying have multiplied in recent years.

Bullying can cause severe mental distress. The cases of adolescents and minors who take their own lives due to the different types of bullying should be alarming to educational professionals. Schools must implement immediate and decisive actions to curtail this unacceptable behavior trend. 

1-Miriam, eight years old

Miriam is an eight-year-old girl who goes to elementary school. She loves animals, so she always has pictures of them in her books. She even has a backpack shaped like a puppy.

Her companions laugh and make fun of her, comparing her with the animals on the stickers on her backpack because she is overweight. Also, since she is “fat,” they take her money and snacks at recess.

Although she has told the teachers repeatedly, they have not done much to change the situation. To try to improve the situation, Miriam stopped eating and is in the hospital for anorexia.

2-Tania: Fourteen years old.

Tania, a 14-year-old teenager, has tried to commit suicide due to her high school classmates’ continuous threats, robberies, and aggressions. The situation has not changed despite filing 20 complaints against 19 of her classmates.

In January 2014, she was admitted to the hospital for 15 days due to an overdose of Valium pills. Despite her attempted suicide, the threats are still ongoing.

3-Diego: Eleven years old

It is a recent case of school bullying in Spain; Diego, an eleven-year-old boy, was a victim of this practice in a school in Madrid.

His mother remembers that her son told her he did not want to go to school, so his mood was always very sad; once, he lost his voice because of a blow he had suffered at school from his classmates.

The day he committed suicide, his mother went to pick him up at school, and he ran frantically to the car to get out safely. Later that evening, he killed himself.

4-Jokin Z: Fourteen years old

It was one of the first cases of bullying that came to light in Spain. After being bullied for months, he decided to commit suicide. The parents felt helpless. They tried for two years to prevent this tragedy and remove the suffering of their teenage son.

As a result of his suicide, eight students had charges brought against them. The parents were also arrested. However, only one individual was convicted. 

5-Jairo: Sixteen years old

Jairo is a 16-year-old boy from a town in Seville who faced severe bullying because of his physical disability. He has a prosthetic leg due to a wrong operation. His classmates continually make fun of him and his disability.

Not only did they trip him, but they also tried to take it off in the gymnastics class. On the other hand, in the social networks, there were photos of him manipulated with computer programs with bad words that made Jairo not want to go to school.

Due to the suffering caused by this type of behavior, Jairo asked to change schools and is currently at another institute.

6-Yaiza: Seven years old

At seven years old, Yaiza suffered bullying from her classmates. They insulted her continuously, to the point that Yaiza had difficulty convincing herself that what her classmates told her was false.  Not only did they insult her, but they also stole her breakfast and even once threw a table at her.

She was fortunate to have a teacher who was involved in the issue of bullying and helped make changes at the school. The teacher brought attention to bullying to better understand why these practices occur in schools.

7-Alan: Seventeen years old

This seventeen-year-old teenager was bullied by his classmates because he was a transsexual. He took his life on December 30, 2015, after taking pills mixed with alcohol.

It was not the first time he tried since he had been receiving therapy numerous times because he had suffered for years. As in other cases, Alan was no longer in school, but that was not enough.

8-Ryan: Fourteen years old

After years of psychological aggression, in 2003, Ryan, then fourteen years old, decided to commit suicide. He did so because he was supposedly gay. It all started because a friend of his published online that he was homosexual.

Because of this, he did not stop receiving jokes, ridicule, and humiliation from his classmates. This case helped to approve the Harassment Prevention Act in Vermont of the US States months after his death.

9-Arancha: Sixteen years old

This 16-year-old girl decided to throw herself from the sixth floor. The reason was the bullying she suffered from classmates in Madrid.

Arancha suffered from motor and intellectual disabilities, which was more than enough for her class to bully her. Although her parents reported this fact to the police, it was not enough to prevent the fatal outcome.

Minutes before launching herself from the building, she said goodbye to the people closest to her by sending them a message through WhatsApp, saying, “I was tired of living.”

10-Lolita: Fifteen years old

Lolita is currently under medical treatment due to the depression she suffers, which has paralyzed her face. This young woman from Maip, Chile, was bullied by four classmates at her school.

Her classmates mocked and humiliated her in class, which seriously affected her. According to the mother, the school knew about her daughter’s mistreatment and did nothing to prevent it.

11-Rebecca: Fifteen years

The case of Rebecca from the state of Florida is an example of cyberbullying. She decided to take her own life in 2013 due to the continuous threats and humiliations suffered by colleagues on social networks.

She and her mother had informed the teachers at school of this situation. Unfortunately, they did not work to stop the attacks on her. She posted on her profile days before her death, “I’m dead. “I cannot stand it anymore.”

12-Phoebe Prince: Fifteen years old

This 15-year-old Irish immigrant girl was harassed by nine teenagers who had criminal charges brought up in 2010. She was bullied physically and psychologically, and there was cyberbullying through cell phones and the internet.

Phoebe was humiliated and assaulted for three months in high school until she ended up hanging herself. The people who harassed her continued to do so even after her death.

13-Rehtaeh: Fifteen years old

This girl from Halifax, Nova Scotia, decided to hang herself in her bathroom after suffering cyber bullying. Her schoolmates and strangers took part in the bullying. Rehtaeh got drunk at a party, where, apart from raping her, they photographed her while it happened.

This photo began circulating everywhere, so even kids she did not know asked her to sleep with them on social networks. Her classmates also insulted her and made fun of her.

14-Oscar: Thirteen years old

This minor, who is 13 years old and in the first year of secondary school, decided to ingest liquid drain cleaner for pipes for the sole purpose of not going to school. Oscar was harassed not only by his classmates but also by one of his teachers.

Oscar could not contain the urge to go to the bathroom due to a urinary problem. His teacher never let him go, so he once urinated on himself.  From that moment on, he had to deal with the treatment he received from his teacher and his classmates, who made fun of him and insulted him repeatedly.

15-Monica: Sixteen years old

Mónica lived in Ciudad Real (Spain) and was 16 years old when she decided to commit suicide because of the treatment she received at school from her classmates. They would insult her on the bus, threaten her, and publish photos and nasty comments on social networks.

She decided to commit suicide to end all the hell that her classmates made her go through. Even though her father, one day before he took his own life, complained to the head of studies about what was happening to his daughter.

16-María: Eleven years old

This girl from Madrid (Spain) suffered harassment from her classmates at a religious school. Her classmates not only made fun of her but even physically mistreated her.

Teachers disputed these claims and did not defend her or take measures to stop them from happening. Because of this, she tried to overdose on pills without success.

17-Amanda: Fifteen years old

Amanda, a Canadian-born minor, committed suicide after posting a video on social media reporting that she was suffering bullying.

It all started when he sent a topless photo of herself to a stranger on the webcam; from that moment, insults and harassment began on the internet.

This bullying lasted three years. Amanda even changed schools to rebuild her life, but it did not help. The abuse caused anxiety and acute depression that led her to consume drugs.

18-Zaira: Fifteen years old

Here is another victim of bullying from classmates. In the case of Zaira, it all started when they recorded her with a cell phone while she was in the bathroom.  These girls spread the video among all the school’s classmates and others outside her school. 

Because of these recordings, Zaira had to take the continuous teasing of her classmates and even physical abuse. Thanks to a lower-class classmate, she faced bullying, and this story had a happy ending.

19-Marco: Eleven years

This child had spent five years enduring the harassment he suffered from his classmates. They made fun of him because he was supposedly overweight, although, in reality, he was not.

They humiliated him on many occasions, and once, they even took off his clothes in gym class.  A teacher knew what was happening to him and did not take action. Marco is currently in another school after telling him everything that happened to his parents.

Conclusions About Bullying

These 19 cases are only 19 of many in our schools. These examples show the flaws that exist in education systems worldwide. The education system professionals are not doing enough to address these abuses.

Despite all we know about bullying, there still needs to be more information about its prevention and action. The schools are not prepared to face this type of situation, leading them to ignore this behavior in their students and leave the families alone with this problem.

Also Read:  11 Human Body Games for Children

To reduce the number of suicides due to school bullying in children, we must educate everyone involved. By providing adequate training, people will know what guidelines to follow in these situations to prevent adolescent suicide.

Related Post

10 activities for children with down syndrome.

The 6 Most Common Bone Marrow Diseases

What is Solomon Syndrome? 7 Guidelines to Combat It

The Role of Dopamine in Love

Child Aggression: Symptoms, Causes and Treatments

What is Vicarious Learning?

Long Words Phobia (Hipopotomonstrosesquipedaliofobia)

21 Activities for Children with ADHD

Cognitive Stimulation: 10 Exercises for Adults and Children

Aggressive Communication: Features and Examples

The 10 Most Common Neurological Symptoms

Mental Hygiene: What it is and 10 tips to have it

The 4 Major Stress Hormones

Mythomania Symptoms, Causes and Treatment

• The Ultimate Guide to Overcoming Driving OCD

• Why Happiness Is a Choice: How to Live a Fulfilling Life

• A Guide on How to Rebuild Your Life After Trauma

• Understanding Trauma Bonding and Its Effects

Its Psychology

Quick Links

• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• About Its Psychology

Recent Posts

• The Battle of Resistance vs Resilience: How to Build Mental Toughness

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 14 December 2021

Bullying at school and mental health problems among adolescents: a repeated cross-sectional study

• Håkan Källmén 1 &
• Mats Hallgren   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0599-2403 2  

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health volume  15 , Article number:  74 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

88k Accesses

13 Citations

30 Altmetric

Metrics details

To examine recent trends in bullying and mental health problems among adolescents and the association between them.

A questionnaire measuring mental health problems, bullying at school, socio-economic status, and the school environment was distributed to all secondary school students aged 15 (school-year 9) and 18 (school-year 11) in Stockholm during 2014, 2018, and 2020 (n = 32,722). Associations between bullying and mental health problems were assessed using logistic regression analyses adjusting for relevant demographic, socio-economic, and school-related factors.

The prevalence of bullying remained stable and was highest among girls in year 9; range = 4.9% to 16.9%. Mental health problems increased; range = + 1.2% (year 9 boys) to + 4.6% (year 11 girls) and were consistently higher among girls (17.2% in year 11, 2020). In adjusted models, having been bullied was detrimentally associated with mental health (OR = 2.57 [2.24–2.96]). Reports of mental health problems were four times higher among boys who had been bullied compared to those not bullied. The corresponding figure for girls was 2.4 times higher.

Conclusions

Exposure to bullying at school was associated with higher odds of mental health problems. Boys appear to be more vulnerable to the deleterious effects of bullying than girls.

Introduction

Bullying involves repeated hurtful actions between peers where an imbalance of power exists [ 1 ]. Arseneault et al. [ 2 ] conducted a review of the mental health consequences of bullying for children and adolescents and found that bullying is associated with severe symptoms of mental health problems, including self-harm and suicidality. Bullying was shown to have detrimental effects that persist into late adolescence and contribute independently to mental health problems. Updated reviews have presented evidence indicating that bullying is causative of mental illness in many adolescents [ 3 , 4 ].

There are indications that mental health problems are increasing among adolescents in some Nordic countries. Hagquist et al. [ 5 ] examined trends in mental health among Scandinavian adolescents (n = 116, 531) aged 11–15 years between 1993 and 2014. Mental health problems were operationalized as difficulty concentrating, sleep disorders, headache, stomach pain, feeling tense, sad and/or dizzy. The study revealed increasing rates of adolescent mental health problems in all four counties (Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark), with Sweden experiencing the sharpest increase among older adolescents, particularly girls. Worsening adolescent mental health has also been reported in the United Kingdom. A study of 28,100 school-aged adolescents in England found that two out of five young people scored above thresholds for emotional problems, conduct problems or hyperactivity [ 6 ]. Female gender, deprivation, high needs status (educational/social), ethnic background, and older age were all associated with higher odds of experiencing mental health difficulties.

Bullying is shown to increase the risk of poor mental health and may partly explain these detrimental changes. Le et al. [ 7 ] reported an inverse association between bullying and mental health among 11–16-year-olds in Vietnam. They also found that poor mental health can make some children and adolescents more vulnerable to bullying at school. Bayer et al. [ 8 ] examined links between bullying at school and mental health among 8–9-year-old children in Australia. Those who experienced bullying more than once a week had poorer mental health than children who experienced bullying less frequently. Friendships moderated this association, such that children with more friends experienced fewer mental health problems (protective effect). Hysing et al. [ 9 ] investigated the association between experiences of bullying (as a victim or perpetrator) and mental health, sleep disorders, and school performance among 16–19 year olds from Norway (n = 10,200). Participants were categorized as victims, bullies, or bully-victims (that is, victims who also bullied others). All three categories were associated with worse mental health, school performance, and sleeping difficulties. Those who had been bullied also reported more emotional problems, while those who bullied others reported more conduct disorders [ 9 ].

As most adolescents spend a considerable amount of time at school, the school environment has been a major focus of mental health research [ 10 , 11 ]. In a recent review, Saminathen et al. [ 12 ] concluded that school is a potential protective factor against mental health problems, as it provides a socially supportive context and prepares students for higher education and employment. However, it may also be the primary setting for protracted bullying and stress [ 13 ]. Another factor associated with adolescent mental health is parental socio-economic status (SES) [ 14 ]. A systematic review indicated that lower parental SES is associated with poorer adolescent mental health [ 15 ]. However, no previous studies have examined whether SES modifies or attenuates the association between bullying and mental health. Similarly, it remains unclear whether school related factors, such as school grades and the school environment, influence the relationship between bullying and mental health. This information could help to identify those adolescents most at risk of harm from bullying.

To address these issues, we investigated the prevalence of bullying at school and mental health problems among Swedish adolescents aged 15–18 years between 2014 and 2020 using a population-based school survey. We also examined associations between bullying at school and mental health problems adjusting for relevant demographic, socioeconomic, and school-related factors. We hypothesized that: (1) bullying and adolescent mental health problems have increased over time; (2) There is an association between bullying victimization and mental health, so that mental health problems are more prevalent among those who have been victims of bullying; and (3) that school-related factors would attenuate the association between bullying and mental health.

Participants

The Stockholm school survey is completed every other year by students in lower secondary school (year 9—compulsory) and upper secondary school (year 11). The survey is mandatory for public schools, but voluntary for private schools. The purpose of the survey is to help inform decision making by local authorities that will ultimately improve students’ wellbeing. The questions relate to life circumstances, including SES, schoolwork, bullying, drug use, health, and crime. Non-completers are those who were absent from school when the survey was completed (< 5%). Response rates vary from year to year but are typically around 75%. For the current study data were available for 2014, 2018 and 2020. In 2014; 5235 boys and 5761 girls responded, in 2018; 5017 boys and 5211 girls responded, and in 2020; 5633 boys and 5865 girls responded (total n = 32,722). Data for the exposure variable, bullied at school, were missing for 4159 students, leaving 28,563 participants in the crude model. The fully adjusted model (described below) included 15,985 participants. The mean age in grade 9 was 15.3 years (SD = 0.51) and in grade 11, 17.3 years (SD = 0.61). As the data are completely anonymous, the study was exempt from ethical approval according to an earlier decision from the Ethical Review Board in Stockholm (2010-241 31-5). Details of the survey are available via a website [ 16 ], and are described in a previous paper [ 17 ].

Students completed the questionnaire during a school lesson, placed it in a sealed envelope and handed it to their teacher. Student were permitted the entire lesson (about 40 min) to complete the questionnaire and were informed that participation was voluntary (and that they were free to cancel their participation at any time without consequences). Students were also informed that the Origo Group was responsible for collection of the data on behalf of the City of Stockholm.

Study outcome

Mental health problems were assessed by using a modified version of the Psychosomatic Problem Scale [ 18 ] shown to be appropriate for children and adolescents and invariant across gender and years. The scale was later modified [ 19 ]. In the modified version, items about difficulty concentrating and feeling giddy were deleted and an item about ‘life being great to live’ was added. Seven different symptoms or problems, such as headaches, depression, feeling fear, stomach problems, difficulty sleeping, believing it’s great to live (coded negatively as seldom or rarely) and poor appetite were used. Students who responded (on a 5-point scale) that any of these problems typically occurs ‘at least once a week’ were considered as having indicators of a mental health problem. Cronbach alpha was 0.69 across the whole sample. Adding these problem areas, a total index was created from 0 to 7 mental health symptoms. Those who scored between 0 and 4 points on the total symptoms index were considered to have a low indication of mental health problems (coded as 0); those who scored between 5 and 7 symptoms were considered as likely having mental health problems (coded as 1).

Primary exposure

Experiences of bullying were measured by the following two questions: Have you felt bullied or harassed during the past school year? Have you been involved in bullying or harassing other students during this school year? Alternatives for the first question were: yes or no with several options describing how the bullying had taken place (if yes). Alternatives indicating emotional bullying were feelings of being mocked, ridiculed, socially excluded, or teased. Alternatives indicating physical bullying were being beaten, kicked, forced to do something against their will, robbed, or locked away somewhere. The response alternatives for the second question gave an estimation of how often the respondent had participated in bullying others (from once to several times a week). Combining the answers to these two questions, five different categories of bullying were identified: (1) never been bullied and never bully others; (2) victims of emotional (verbal) bullying who have never bullied others; (3) victims of physical bullying who have never bullied others; (4) victims of bullying who have also bullied others; and (5) perpetrators of bullying, but not victims. As the number of positive cases in the last three categories was low (range = 3–15 cases) bully categories 2–4 were combined into one primary exposure variable: ‘bullied at school’.

Assessment year was operationalized as the year when data was collected: 2014, 2018, and 2020. Age was operationalized as school grade 9 (15–16 years) or 11 (17–18 years). Gender was self-reported (boy or girl). The school situation To assess experiences of the school situation, students responded to 18 statements about well-being in school, participation in important school matters, perceptions of their teachers, and teaching quality. Responses were given on a four-point Likert scale ranging from ‘do not agree at all’ to ‘fully agree’. To reduce the 18-items down to their essential factors, we performed a principal axis factor analysis. Results showed that the 18 statements formed five factors which, according to the Kaiser criterion (eigen values > 1) explained 56% of the covariance in the student’s experience of the school situation. The five factors identified were: (1) Participation in school; (2) Interesting and meaningful work; (3) Feeling well at school; (4) Structured school lessons; and (5) Praise for achievements. For each factor, an index was created that was dichotomised (poor versus good circumstance) using the median-split and dummy coded with ‘good circumstance’ as reference. A description of the items included in each factor is available as Additional file 1 . Socio-economic status (SES) was assessed with three questions about the education level of the student’s mother and father (dichotomized as university degree versus not), and the amount of spending money the student typically received for entertainment each month (> SEK 1000 [approximately $120] versus less). Higher parental education and more spending money were used as reference categories. School grades in Swedish, English, and mathematics were measured separately on a 7-point scale and dichotomized as high (grades A, B, and C) versus low (grades D, E, and F). High school grades were used as the reference category.

Statistical analyses

The prevalence of mental health problems and bullying at school are presented using descriptive statistics, stratified by survey year (2014, 2018, 2020), gender, and school year (9 versus 11). As noted, we reduced the 18-item questionnaire assessing school function down to five essential factors by conducting a principal axis factor analysis (see Additional file 1 ). We then calculated the association between bullying at school (defined above) and mental health problems using multivariable logistic regression. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (Cis). To assess the contribution of SES and school-related factors to this association, three models are presented: Crude, Model 1 adjusted for demographic factors: age, gender, and assessment year; Model 2 adjusted for Model 1 plus SES (parental education and student spending money), and Model 3 adjusted for Model 2 plus school-related factors (school grades and the five factors identified in the principal factor analysis). These covariates were entered into the regression models in three blocks, where the final model represents the fully adjusted analyses. In all models, the category ‘not bullied at school’ was used as the reference. Pseudo R-square was calculated to estimate what proportion of the variance in mental health problems was explained by each model. Unlike the R-square statistic derived from linear regression, the Pseudo R-square statistic derived from logistic regression gives an indicator of the explained variance, as opposed to an exact estimate, and is considered informative in identifying the relative contribution of each model to the outcome [ 20 ]. All analyses were performed using SPSS v. 26.0.

Prevalence of bullying at school and mental health problems

Estimates of the prevalence of bullying at school and mental health problems across the 12 strata of data (3 years × 2 school grades × 2 genders) are shown in Table 1 . The prevalence of bullying at school increased minimally (< 1%) between 2014 and 2020, except among girls in grade 11 (2.5% increase). Mental health problems increased between 2014 and 2020 (range = 1.2% [boys in year 11] to 4.6% [girls in year 11]); were three to four times more prevalent among girls (range = 11.6% to 17.2%) compared to boys (range = 2.6% to 4.9%); and were more prevalent among older adolescents compared to younger adolescents (range = 1% to 3.1% higher). Pooling all data, reports of mental health problems were four times more prevalent among boys who had been victims of bullying compared to those who reported no experiences with bullying. The corresponding figure for girls was two and a half times as prevalent.

Associations between bullying at school and mental health problems

Table 2 shows the association between bullying at school and mental health problems after adjustment for relevant covariates. Demographic factors, including female gender (OR = 3.87; CI 3.48–4.29), older age (OR = 1.38, CI 1.26–1.50), and more recent assessment year (OR = 1.18, CI 1.13–1.25) were associated with higher odds of mental health problems. In Model 2, none of the included SES variables (parental education and student spending money) were associated with mental health problems. In Model 3 (fully adjusted), the following school-related factors were associated with higher odds of mental health problems: lower grades in Swedish (OR = 1.42, CI 1.22–1.67); uninteresting or meaningless schoolwork (OR = 2.44, CI 2.13–2.78); feeling unwell at school (OR = 1.64, CI 1.34–1.85); unstructured school lessons (OR = 1.31, CI = 1.16–1.47); and no praise for achievements (OR = 1.19, CI 1.06–1.34). After adjustment for all covariates, being bullied at school remained associated with higher odds of mental health problems (OR = 2.57; CI 2.24–2.96). Demographic and school-related factors explained 12% and 6% of the variance in mental health problems, respectively (Pseudo R-Square). The inclusion of socioeconomic factors did not alter the variance explained.

Our findings indicate that mental health problems increased among Swedish adolescents between 2014 and 2020, while the prevalence of bullying at school remained stable (< 1% increase), except among girls in year 11, where the prevalence increased by 2.5%. As previously reported [ 5 , 6 ], mental health problems were more common among girls and older adolescents. These findings align with previous studies showing that adolescents who are bullied at school are more likely to experience mental health problems compared to those who are not bullied [ 3 , 4 , 9 ]. This detrimental relationship was observed after adjustment for school-related factors shown to be associated with adolescent mental health [ 10 ].

A novel finding was that boys who had been bullied at school reported a four-times higher prevalence of mental health problems compared to non-bullied boys. The corresponding figure for girls was 2.5 times higher for those who were bullied compared to non-bullied girls, which could indicate that boys are more vulnerable to the deleterious effects of bullying than girls. Alternatively, it may indicate that boys are (on average) bullied more frequently or more intensely than girls, leading to worse mental health. Social support could also play a role; adolescent girls often have stronger social networks than boys and could be more inclined to voice concerns about bullying to significant others, who in turn may offer supports which are protective [ 21 ]. Related studies partly confirm this speculative explanation. An Estonian study involving 2048 children and adolescents aged 10–16 years found that, compared to girls, boys who had been bullied were more likely to report severe distress, measured by poor mental health and feelings of hopelessness [ 22 ].

Other studies suggest that heritable traits, such as the tendency to internalize problems and having low self-esteem are associated with being a bully-victim [ 23 ]. Genetics are understood to explain a large proportion of bullying-related behaviors among adolescents. A study from the Netherlands involving 8215 primary school children found that genetics explained approximately 65% of the risk of being a bully-victim [ 24 ]. This proportion was similar for boys and girls. Higher than average body mass index (BMI) is another recognized risk factor [ 25 ]. A recent Australian trial involving 13 schools and 1087 students (mean age = 13 years) targeted adolescents with high-risk personality traits (hopelessness, anxiety sensitivity, impulsivity, sensation seeking) to reduce bullying at school; both as victims and perpetrators [ 26 ]. There was no significant intervention effect for bullying victimization or perpetration in the total sample. In a secondary analysis, compared to the control schools, intervention school students showed greater reductions in victimization, suicidal ideation, and emotional symptoms. These findings potentially support targeting high-risk personality traits in bullying prevention [ 26 ].

The relative stability of bullying at school between 2014 and 2020 suggests that other factors may better explain the increase in mental health problems seen here. Many factors could be contributing to these changes, including the increasingly competitive labour market, higher demands for education, and the rapid expansion of social media [ 19 , 27 , 28 ]. A recent Swedish study involving 29,199 students aged between 11 and 16 years found that the effects of school stress on psychosomatic symptoms have become stronger over time (1993–2017) and have increased more among girls than among boys [ 10 ]. Research is needed examining possible gender differences in perceived school stress and how these differences moderate associations between bullying and mental health.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths of the current study include the large participant sample from diverse schools; public and private, theoretical and practical orientations. The survey included items measuring diverse aspects of the school environment; factors previously linked to adolescent mental health but rarely included as covariates in studies of bullying and mental health. Some limitations are also acknowledged. These data are cross-sectional which means that the direction of the associations cannot be determined. Moreover, all the variables measured were self-reported. Previous studies indicate that students tend to under-report bullying and mental health problems [ 29 ]; thus, our results may underestimate the prevalence of these behaviors.

In conclusion, consistent with our stated hypotheses, we observed an increase in self-reported mental health problems among Swedish adolescents, and a detrimental association between bullying at school and mental health problems. Although bullying at school does not appear to be the primary explanation for these changes, bullying was detrimentally associated with mental health after adjustment for relevant demographic, socio-economic, and school-related factors, confirming our third hypothesis. The finding that boys are potentially more vulnerable than girls to the deleterious effects of bullying should be replicated in future studies, and the mechanisms investigated. Future studies should examine the longitudinal association between bullying and mental health, including which factors mediate/moderate this relationship. Epigenetic studies are also required to better understand the complex interaction between environmental and biological risk factors for adolescent mental health [ 24 ].

Availability of data and materials

Data requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis; please email the corresponding author.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Olweus D. School bullying: development and some important challenges. Ann Rev Clin Psychol. 2013;9(9):751–80. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Arseneault L, Bowes L, Shakoor S. Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: “Much ado about nothing”? Psychol Med. 2010;40(5):717–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291709991383 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Arseneault L. The long-term impact of bullying victimization on mental health. World Psychiatry. 2017;16(1):27–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20399 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Moore SE, Norman RE, Suetani S, Thomas HJ, Sly PD, Scott JG. Consequences of bullying victimization in childhood and adolescence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Psychiatry. 2017;7(1):60–76. https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v7.i1.60 .

Hagquist C, Due P, Torsheim T, Valimaa R. Cross-country comparisons of trends in adolescent psychosomatic symptoms—a Rasch analysis of HBSC data from four Nordic countries. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17(1):27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1097-x .

Deighton J, Lereya ST, Casey P, Patalay P, Humphrey N, Wolpert M. Prevalence of mental health problems in schools: poverty and other risk factors among 28 000 adolescents in England. Br J Psychiatry. 2019;215(3):565–7. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2019.19 .

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Le HTH, Tran N, Campbell MA, Gatton ML, Nguyen HT, Dunne MP. Mental health problems both precede and follow bullying among adolescents and the effects differ by gender: a cross-lagged panel analysis of school-based longitudinal data in Vietnam. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-019-0291-x .

Bayer JK, Mundy L, Stokes I, Hearps S, Allen N, Patton G. Bullying, mental health and friendship in Australian primary school children. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2018;23(4):334–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12261 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hysing M, Askeland KG, La Greca AM, Solberg ME, Breivik K, Sivertsen B. Bullying involvement in adolescence: implications for sleep, mental health, and academic outcomes. J Interpers Violence. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519853409 .

Hogberg B, Strandh M, Hagquist C. Gender and secular trends in adolescent mental health over 24 years—the role of school-related stress. Soc Sci Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112890 .

Kidger J, Araya R, Donovan J, Gunnell D. The effect of the school environment on the emotional health of adolescents: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2012;129(5):925–49. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-2248 .

Saminathen MG, Låftman SB, Modin B. En fungerande skola för alla: skolmiljön som skyddsfaktor för ungas psykiska välbefinnande. [A functioning school for all: the school environment as a protective factor for young people’s mental well-being]. Socialmedicinsk tidskrift [Soc Med]. 2020;97(5–6):804–16.

Google Scholar  

Bibou-Nakou I, Tsiantis J, Assimopoulos H, Chatzilambou P, Giannakopoulou D. School factors related to bullying: a qualitative study of early adolescent students. Soc Psychol Educ. 2012;15(2):125–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9179-1 .

Vukojevic M, Zovko A, Talic I, Tanovic M, Resic B, Vrdoljak I, Splavski B. Parental socioeconomic status as a predictor of physical and mental health outcomes in children—literature review. Acta Clin Croat. 2017;56(4):742–8. https://doi.org/10.20471/acc.2017.56.04.23 .

Reiss F. Socioeconomic inequalities and mental health problems in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2013;90:24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.04.026 .

Stockholm City. Stockholmsenkät (The Stockholm Student Survey). 2021. https://start.stockholm/aktuellt/nyheter/2020/09/presstraff-stockholmsenkaten-2020/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2021.

Zeebari Z, Lundin A, Dickman PW, Hallgren M. Are changes in alcohol consumption among swedish youth really occurring “in concert”? A new perspective using quantile regression. Alc Alcohol. 2017;52(4):487–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agx020 .

Hagquist C. Psychometric properties of the PsychoSomatic Problems Scale: a Rasch analysis on adolescent data. Social Indicat Res. 2008;86(3):511–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9186-3 .

Hagquist C. Ungas psykiska hälsa i Sverige–komplexa trender och stora kunskapsluckor [Young people’s mental health in Sweden—complex trends and large knowledge gaps]. Socialmedicinsk tidskrift [Soc Med]. 2013;90(5):671–83.

Wu W, West SG. Detecting misspecification in mean structures for growth curve models: performance of pseudo R(2)s and concordance correlation coefficients. Struct Equ Model. 2013;20(3):455–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.797829 .

Holt MK, Espelage DL. Perceived social support among bullies, victims, and bully-victims. J Youth Adolscence. 2007;36(8):984–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9153-3 .

Mark L, Varnik A, Sisask M. Who suffers most from being involved in bullying-bully, victim, or bully-victim? J Sch Health. 2019;89(2):136–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12720 .

Tsaousis I. The relationship of self-esteem to bullying perpetration and peer victimization among schoolchildren and adolescents: a meta-analytic review. Aggress Violent Behav. 2016;31:186–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.09.005 .

Veldkamp SAM, Boomsma DI, de Zeeuw EL, van Beijsterveldt CEM, Bartels M, Dolan CV, van Bergen E. Genetic and environmental influences on different forms of bullying perpetration, bullying victimization, and their co-occurrence. Behav Genet. 2019;49(5):432–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-019-09968-5 .

Janssen I, Craig WM, Boyce WF, Pickett W. Associations between overweight and obesity with bullying behaviors in school-aged children. Pediatrics. 2004;113(5):1187–94. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.113.5.1187 .

Kelly EV, Newton NC, Stapinski LA, Conrod PJ, Barrett EL, Champion KE, Teesson M. A novel approach to tackling bullying in schools: personality-targeted intervention for adolescent victims and bullies in Australia. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;59(4):508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.010 .

Gunnell D, Kidger J, Elvidge H. Adolescent mental health in crisis. BMJ. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k2608 .

O’Reilly M, Dogra N, Whiteman N, Hughes J, Eruyar S, Reilly P. Is social media bad for mental health and wellbeing? Exploring the perspectives of adolescents. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2018;23:601–13.

Unnever JD, Cornell DG. Middle school victims of bullying: who reports being bullied? Aggr Behav. 2004;30(5):373–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20030 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors are grateful to the Department for Social Affairs, Stockholm, for permission to use data from the Stockholm School Survey.

Open access funding provided by Karolinska Institute. None to declare.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Stockholm Prevents Alcohol and Drug Problems (STAD), Center for Addiction Research and Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden

Håkan Källmén

Epidemiology of Psychiatric Conditions, Substance Use and Social Environment (EPiCSS), Department of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Level 6, Solnavägen 1e, Solna, Sweden

Mats Hallgren

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

HK conceived the study and analyzed the data (with input from MH). HK and MH interpreted the data and jointly wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mats Hallgren .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

As the data are completely anonymous, the study was exempt from ethical approval according to an earlier decision from the Ethical Review Board in Stockholm (2010-241 31-5).

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Principal factor analysis description.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Källmén, H., Hallgren, M. Bullying at school and mental health problems among adolescents: a repeated cross-sectional study. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health 15 , 74 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-021-00425-y

Download citation

Received : 05 October 2021

Accepted : 23 November 2021

Published : 14 December 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-021-00425-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Mental health
• Adolescents
• School-related factors
• Gender differences

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health

ISSN: 1753-2000

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 22 November 2021

Bullying in schools: prevalence, bystanders’ reaction and associations with sex and relationships

• Temesgen Demissie Eijigu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8846-8844 1 &
• Seleshi Zeleke Teketel 2  

BMC Psychology volume  9 , Article number:  183 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

9162 Accesses

5 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Bullying and peer victimization are the most pressing social problems affecting the wellbeing of children and adolescents. This study attempts to estimate the prevalence and examine the association of bystander’s sex, her/his relationship with the victim and with the bully, and bystander’s reaction to school bullying in East Gojjam Administrative Zone, Ethiopia.

This study followed an explanatory mixed-method study design. For the quantitative phase, 612 participants were selected using multistage cluster sampling techniques and for qualitative phase, 18 participants were selected using purposive sampling technique. We used self-reported questionnaires and semi-structured interviews to collect data from students attending grades 7, 8, 9, and 10.

This study revealed that 55% of bystanders remained passive while 38% of them defended the victim upon witnessing bullying incidents. Pearson Chi-Square test for independence indicated a significant association between bystanders’ relationship with the victim and/or bully, and bystanders’ reaction. In contrast, sex has no significant association with bystanders’ reaction. The semi-structured interview data also suggested that large number of bystanders most often stood by passively while some of them defended the victim.

The practice of defending among students attending their education in governmental primary and secondary schools in East Gojjam Administrative Zone was low. Close social relationships (being close friends, relatives, and classmates) with the victim and bully were significantly associated with the practice of defending.

Peer Review reports

Bullying and peer victimization are the most pressing social problems affecting the wellbeing of children and adolescents [ 1 ]. Although bullying occurs in many contexts [ 2 ], it is predominantly prevalent within a school setting [ 3 , 4 ]. For instance, over 90% of primary and secondary school students in Australia witnessed verbal bullying, and more than 60% witnessed physical bullying in their schools [ 5 ]. Moreover, a study on the prevalence of being bullied in South Australian schools depicted that approximately one of every two secondary school students experienced victimization by peers while at school [ 3 ].

The problem of violence and bullying is also prevalent in Ethiopia [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. A study in Addis Ababa revealed that 84% of teachers and directors confirmed that violence is a problem in and around primary and secondary schools, mainly targeting girls and smaller children [ 7 ]. Similarly, a national study in Ethiopia revealed that 13.1% and 16.7% of children have been left out and hit by other children, respectively, in their class [ 10 ].

The situation of school bullying in the East Gojjam Zone does not seem an exception. For example, in the 2014 academic year, more than 57% of students in Menkorer High School at Debre Markos Town, the capital of East Gojjam Administrative Zone, experienced physical and sexual violence [ 11 ].

School bullying is viewed as a group phenomenon that, in addition to bullies and victims, involves a large number of bystanders who witness bullying [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. For instance, two studies in Canada illustrated that peer bystanders were present in more than five out of six bullying episodes [ 13 , 14 ]. Another natural observational research also reported that peers were present closely in nine out of ten bullying episodes [ 13 ]. Although bullying often occurs in the presence of large bystanders who have a high potential to reduce it, most do not intervene to stop it [ 13 , 14 ].

In bullying situations, bystanders may take the following four roles: (1) assistants, who join in the bully’s side (2) reinforcers, who encourage bullies (3) passive bystanders, who merely watch what is happening and (4) defenders, who stand up on behalf of victims [ 12 ]. Recent studies proposed three forms of bystander roles as passive bystanders, defenders, and pro-bully/bully supporters/by combining the roles of assistant and reinforcers [ 15 ].

A study in 1220 elementary school children from grades four to six found that low scores on the anti-bullying attitude scale were associated with bullying, assisting the bully, and reinforcing the bully. In contrast, high scores on that scale were related to defending the victim and remaining passive in bullying situations [ 16 ]. Since passive bystanders scored high in anti-bullying attitude and moral disapproval scores of bullying, it is easier to change them to the defenders than assistants and reinforcers. Thus, passive bystanders were the focus of this study. Besides, passive bystanders and defenders account for more than half of the bystanders who could play a key role in reducing bullying. To our knowledge, no previous studies in Ethiopia estimated the extent of defenders and passive bystanders during bullying in primary and general secondary school students. Thus, one of the focuses of this study was to estimate the extent of defending and passive bystanding behaviors during school bullying.

Empirical findings reported gender differences in defending and passive bystanding behavior [ 5 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. Several studies revealed that girls are more involved in defending the victim [ 16 , 17 , 20 , 21 , 22 ] and remaining passive in bullying situations than boys, whereas boys were more involved in supporting bullies as assistants and reinforcers than girls [ 16 , 17 , 20 , 23 ]. In addition, some studies have shown a significant association between the gender of the bystander, the gender of the bully, and the victim [ 13 ]. Their findings suggest that boys are more likely to defend when the bully or victim is male, whereas girls are more likely to defend when the bully or victim is female. Likewise, some studies [ 24 , 25 ] documented that students were more likely to defend their same-sex peers than opposite-sex peers. This shows that previous studies emphasized sex differences and how bystanders are more likely to help the same sex victim [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. They did not answer the question, “To what extent do female and/or male bystanders defend or remain passive upon witnessing a girl victimizing a boy, a boy victimizing a boy, a boy victimizing a girl, and a girl victimizing a girl. Thus, further research is needed to fill these knowledge gaps.

Furthermore, bystanders’ relationships with the victim or bully may also influence defending or passive bystanding behavior [ 26 , 27 ]. These studies revealed that bystanders who had a close relationship with the victim are more likely to help the victim, whereas those who had a close relationship with the perpetrator and no relationship with the victim are more likely to remain passive; sometimes it may even initiate co-bullying [ 26 ]. The motives for co-bullying or non-intervention, were reported to come from fear of friendship loss, perceived peer pressure, or to not disprove the actions of friends.

In the culture of Amhara, when one's close relative or friend is attacked, he/she will not watch the incident passively. At least, he/she is expected to separate the bully and the victim. This strong social bond among Amhara society [ 28 ] makes it reasonable to include bystanders’ relationship with the bully and victim in the study.

Research question

This research planned to answer the following questions:

To what extent do students defend or remain passive during bullying incidents in primary and secondary schools in East Gojjam Administrative Zone?

To what extent do male and female bystanders defend or remain passive upon witnessing a boy victimizing a boy, a boy victimizing a girl, a girl victimizing a girl, and a girl victimizing a boy?

Does the relationship between the bystander and the victim or the bystander and the bully make a difference in the bystander’s reaction?

This study aimed to estimate the prevalence and examine the association between bystander’s sex, her/his relationship with the victim and with the bully, and bystander’s reaction to school bullying in East Gojjam Administrative Zone, Ethiopia.

Study design

This study followed an explanatory sequential mixed methods design [ 29 , 30 ] with quantitative data collection and analysis in the first phase and qualitative data collection and analysis in the second phase. Mixed methods design was selected to other designs since the complex nature of bystanding behaviors during school bullying requires an investigation from multiple ways.

The study was conducted in primary and general secondary schools from Aneded, Debre Markos, Enebesie Sar Medir, Enemay, and Machakel Woredas of East Gojjam Administrative Zone, Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia. These five Woredas consists of 181 second cycle primary schools (Grades 5–8) and 19 secondary schools (grades 9 and 10). Primary and general secondary schools from Woredas in East Gojjam Administrative Zone were selected due to bullying prevalence and its serious consequences. In addition to familiarity with the language and culture, the researcher works in the study area that may contribute to the study.

Participants and sampling techniques

The quantitative data were drawn from 612 students aged 12–16 years attending five primary schools in grades 7and 8 and five general secondary schools in grades 9 and 10 (see Table 1 ). To select participants for this study, we used a multistage cluster sampling procedure. In the first stage, we subdivided the 19 Woredas of East Gojjam Administrative Zone into five groups based on the number of students’ population from grades 7–10. From each group, we selected one woreda randomly. Then, from each woreda, one general secondary school was chosen randomly. Next, for accessibility and comparison purposes, from all primary schools in the area where the selected general secondary schools were situated, one primary school from each woreda was selected by using lottery method. Then, one class from each grade in each school was selected by applying lottery method. Accordingly, 20 classes of students from both primary and general secondary schools (10 classes each) were invited to participate in the study.

On the other hand, the qualitative data were drawn from 18 participants (9 boys and 9 girls) who witnessed bullying incidents. To select participants, a purposive sampling technique was employed. With the help of school principals, homeroom teachers, and classroom representatives, students who usually defend or passively watch when witnessing bullying incidents were selected. Participants’ age ranged from 14 to 16 years, and more than 22% were from rural areas. Concerning grade level, five students were from grade seven, four students from grade eight, five students from grade nine, and four students from grade ten.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

All students who were attending grades 7–10 education in 20 classes were included in the study. Those students who witnessed bullying were also included in the study. Those students outside the age range of 12–16 years, who did not witness bullying, and absent from class during data collection were excluded from the study.

Data collection instruments

Questionnaire.

To collect quantitative data, self-report questionnaires have been adapted from previous sources [ 17 ]. To estimate the prevalence and examine the association between bystander’s sex, her/his relationship with the victim and with the bully, and bystander’s reaction to school bullying, participants were asked to recall one particular incident where they witnessed a student/s bullying another student since the beginning of this semester. The items included in the questionnaire were: “Describe in brief the nature of the bullying incident you witnessed,” “When and where the bullying incident happened,” “Describe the characteristics of the victim and the bully (sex, grade, bystander’s relationship with the victim/bully such as close relative, close friend, classmate, a person that I knew but have no close relationship, or person that I did not know),” and “What did you do when you witnessed bullying incident?”.

A bystander was placed into categories of defender, passive bystander, and bully supporter based on his/her reactions to the bullying incident in the school:

If a student answers, “I joined in the bullying when the bully had started it,” “I assisted the bullying by doing something for the bully”, and/or “I giggled, laughed, shouted, or made similar reactions,” s/he is categorized under “bully supporter.”

If a student answers, “I kept looking at the bullying without siding anyone,” “Nothing, I went away from the situation,” and/or “Nothing, I pretended not to notice what was happening,” s/he is categorized under “passive bystander.”

If a student answers, “I tried to help in some way but was not successful,” and/or I tried to help in some way and was successful,” s/he is categorized under “defender.”

The English version of the instrument was translated into the Amharic language by three language experts who have Ph.D. in Teaching Amharic, Linguistic, and Teaching English as a Foreign Language and whose mother tongue was Amharic. The principal investigator of this study synthesized a single version by combining the best cultural translation of each item. The appropriateness of the synthesized translated version was judged by three language experts (two Amharic, one English) and two psychologists. By taking into account the feedback offered by professionals, in view of the study's objectives and reviewed literature, the researcher of this study revised the synthesized translated version of the instrument. An expert from Debre Markos University who had a doctoral degree in Teaching English as a Foreign Language back-translated the synthesized version from Amharic into English. Moreover, the Amharic version of the instrument was submitted to seven psychology instructors of Debre Markos University to assess the instruments' content validity. Based on comments of experts, some items were modified. Finally, the questionnaire was administered to the participants during the period 01–31 January 2019.

Semi-structure interview

The interviews were conducted face to face by the principal investigator from 01 April to 02 May 2019 using semi-structured open-ended items with probing questions. Interviews were conducted at the offices of the counselor, or school director lasted between 30 and 45 min. Students were alone (not accompanied by guardians/parents) when interviews were administered. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and notes were taken properly. Items in the interview guide include: “If you have witnessed someone being bullied by another student, tell me what happened?”, “How did you feel when you saw bullying happening?”, “What did you do when you witnessed bullying happening? Why?”, “Who else witnessed the bullying situations besides you?”, “What did they do when this was happening?”, “Why do you think they reacted this way?”, “Why do you think that some students defend and others remain silent in bullying incidents?” and “How do you describe boys and girls' engagement in defending or passive bystanding behaviors?”.

Data analysis techniques

Researchers employed percentage to describe the rate of defending and passive bystanding behavior during bullying incidents for data analysis. Chi-square test of independence was used to check the association between bystanders’ sex, their relationship with the victim and with the bully, and their reaction to the bullying incident. Thematic analysis [ 31 ] was used to analyze the qualitative data.

Ethical considerations

Addis Ababa University School of Psychology Ethical Review Committee exempted the study from requiring ethical clearance and suggested collecting letter of permission from the school of Psychology. Accordingly, a letter of permission was collected from the School of Psychology, Addis Ababa University.

Permission letters were submitted to East Gojjam Administrative Zone Education Office. The office itself wrote a letter of permission to school directors. After receiving permission from school directors, students were also asked their willingness to participate in the study. Before data collection, informed assent and passive consent were secured from students and parents, respectively. Students were also informed that they would be free to omit any questions they did not want to answer. The participants were also informed that their identity would not be disclosed to any third party, and the information they provided would be kept confidential.

The extent of defenders, passive bystanders, and bully supporters

Out of 511 participants who reported witnessing a single bullying incident, 55% of bystanders reported being passive bystanders, and 38% of them reported being defenders (see Table 2 ). The Chi-Square test revealed significant differences between the three percentages, x 2 (2, N = 511) = 181.131, p  = 0.000.

In the semi-structured interview, all of the participants agreed that most of the students did not want to defend the victims when witnessing school bullying. For instance, One interviewee stated, “Those who stand and watch victimization were larger than those who defend because they have the interest to see the fight and to know who wins at the end.”

The extent of students involved in defending, passive bystanding, and bully supporting by bully-victim sex

As shown in Table 3 , 39.3% of bystanders witnessed male victimizing male, 33.1% witnessed male victimizing female, 20.2% witnessed female victimizing female, and 7.4% witnessed female victimizing male.

Since the bully support role expected frequencies were less than 5 in more than 8% of the cells [ 32 ], and the purpose of the study focused on defending and passive bystanding behaviors, the bully support role was removed from further analysis (see Table 4 ).

The Chi-Square test revealed no significant association between bully-victim sex and bystander’s reaction, χ 2 (3, N = 475) = 1.956, p  = 0.58, Cramer’s V = 0.06.

The extent to which male and female bystanders defend, or remain passive upon witnessing victimization across bully-victim sex

Tables 5 , 6 , 7 and 8 summarizes that 67.2% of males and 32.8% females had witnessed male victimizing male, 31.2% males, and 68.8% females witnessed male victimizing femalel, 14.4% males and 85.6% females witnessed female victimizing female, and 63.9% males and 36.1% females witnessed female victimizing male.

Among students who witnessed male victimizing male, 40.2% of boys and 38.7% of girls defended victims. Besides, 36% of boys and 49.1% of girls who witnessed male victimizing female helped victims in some way. Regarding students who saw female victimizing female, 46.2% of boys and 35.1% of girls defended victims. Moreover, 30.4% of boys and 53.8% of girls helped victims when witnessing female victimizing male.

The Chi-Square test revealed no significant association between bystander’s sex with victimization across bully-victim sex and bystander’s reaction. The Chi-Square test values were χ 2 (1, N = 189) = 0.001, p  = 0.974, phi  = − 0.014, for students witnessing male victimizing male; χ 2 (1, N = 160) = 1.881, p  = 0.170, phi  = − 0.122, for students witnessing male victimizing female; and χ 2 (1, N = 36) = 1.057, p  = 0.304, phi  = − 0.231, for students witnessing female victimizing male.

The interview data revealed that boys and girls intervened when witnessing school bullying. For instance, Hermela noted, “When male victimizes female, mostly girls hold girls and boys hold boys.” Kidist, a ninth-grade student, also indicated, “When female victimizes female, both boys and girls may intervene.”

The qualitative data demonstrated a dissimilar intervention approach between girls and boys when witnessing male physically victimizing male. Male students, most of the time, defend directly when witnessing male physically victimizing male. On the other hand, girls can participate in defending indirectly by screaming or calling other students or reporting the case to the school authority. For instance, Hermela says, “When male physically attacks male, mostly boys and teachers directly intervene.” Debasu, an eighth-grade student said “If a girl directly intervenes when male is victimized, rumors will spread which show the girl has love affair with the victim.”

The extent of students’ participation in defending and passive bystanding behavior by relationship with the victim or bully

As indicated in Tables 9 and 10 , bystanders were asked to report their relationship with victims and bullies. Among those who reported their relationship with victims and bullies, 3.6% and 3.8% reported to be relatives, 26.7% and 11.6% close friends, 24.6% and 24.2% classmates, 24.6% and 26.3% knew the victim/bully, but have no close relationships, and 20.4% and 34.1% did not know the victim and bully, respectively. Among those who reported their relationship with the victim, 52.9% of relatives, 60.6% of close friends, and 47.8% of classmates defended the victim. Similarly, among those who reported their relationship with the bully, 61.1% of relatives, 49.1% of close friends, and 47% of classmates defended the victim.

The Chi-Square test revealed that there is a significant association between the relationship with the victim and bystander’s reaction, χ 2 (4, 475) = 32.79, p  < 0.001, phi = − 0.263; and between relationship with the bully and bystander’s reaction, χ 2 (4, N = 475) = 9.847, p  = 0.043, phi  = − 0.114.

The qualitative data through interview indicated that bystanders’ close relationship with the victim or/and bully as key determinant of defending upon witnessing school bullying. For instance, Debasu said “I have entered (involved in defending) because both the perpetrators and the victims were my friends.” A grade eight student named Binyam stated, “Students who are relative or close friends…to the victim/bully would not have any role other than separating the bully and the victim.” Hermela also noted that relatives, friends, and teachers are defenders during victimization.

On the other hand, not being a friend of the bully or the victim was reported as a possible reason for bystanders’ passive bystanding. For instance, Hermela mentioned “bystanders’ not being the friend of the bully or the victim as one reason for bystanders to surround and watch bullying events. Had the bystanders been friends of the victim/bully, they would have intervened or they would have called a teacher.”

The extent to which students defend or passively watch during bullying incidents

The findings of this study revealed that a larger proportion of students remained passive upon witnessing school bullying. Fifty five percent of bystanders were involved in passive bystanding behavior, and 38% of them involved in defending behavior.

The interview data also supported the findings of the quantitative data. All participants of the interview reported that many bystanders most often stood by passively, and only some of them defended the victim. Many participants concisely stated that when students in school witness bullying incidents, most of them often stand and observe while a small number of others decide to defend.

These findings are consistent with prior studies [ 14 , 17 ]. For instance, a study conducted on college students who recalled bullying events occurring in junior high school and high school students with the same method reported that 59% of bystanders chose to remain passive upon witnessing bullying situations, and 31% of them were involved in defending on behalf of the victims [ 17 ]. Similar findings were also reported in an observational study conducted in two Toronto school children in Canada [ 14 ]. Even the percentages are very close to the ones this study found.

There are various explanations attributed to the surpassing of passive bystanders to defenders in East Gojjam Administrative Zone. One reason for passivity of bystanders during bullying incidents may involve the gradual decline of helping relationships due to urbanization. In the past, people do not often standby and watch when one individual victimized another. Findings in Yetmen, East Gojjam, revealed that when conflicts arise within and between households, they were usually resolved by neighbors. If neighbors cannot solve the problem, relatives of the two parties consider the problem and try to address it. If this level of conflict resolution fails, the elder of the community get involved [ 28 ]. So, helping each other during an emergency was the norm. Due to urbanization, the norms of helping relationships are changing somehow in the current East Gojjam. Another possible explanation for more passive bystanders to defenders involves fear of revenge. If the perpetrator is older and/or physically stronger than the bystander, the bystanders are more likely to remain passive. Student bystanders may believe that defending on behalf of the victim could lead the older/or stronger bully to attack the defender later. Many other personal and situational factors (e.g., lower level of bystander’s self-efficacy, empathy, lower number of close friends, bullying experiences, high moral disengagement) may also be used to explain greater proportions of passive bystanders to defenders in bullying situations [ 17 , 20 , 22 , 26 , 33 ].

The quantitative findings demonstrated that there were no significant difference between boys and girls in defending and passive bystanding behaviors upon witnessing a boy victimizing a boy, a boy victimizing a girl, and a girl victimizing a boy.

According to the interview data, both boys and girls can intervene when a boy victimizes a boy. But, their style of intervention may differ. Boys may intervene directly when witnessing physical bullying, whereas girls may intervene indirectly. Many participants said that boys, teachers, and adults directly intervene when a boy physically victimizes a boy. One possible reason for the direct intervention of more boys than girls was that if a girl intervenes directly when a boy victimizes a boy, rumors of love between the girl and the victim will spread. In the culture of the study area, having a boyfriend for a girl and a girlfriend for a boy is not a commonly accepted norm at that age level. If they establish such kinds of friendship, they do not disclose it to others. If other students know the relationship, they become the target of the rumor. So as to avoid being the target of the rumor, the girl will decide to use indirect strategies to help the victim.

Another possible explanation for more direct defending of boys than girls in physical bullying was that boys were more often socialized and culturally expected to defend directly than girls. Let alone defending on behalf of the victim, boys are expected to be a winner in any fight by their families and are not accepted by families if beaten up by anyone. If they fail to win the fight, their parents could further beat them. Though girls’ involvement in separating the bully and the victim is less direct, they frequently call defenders by screaming.

The finding also indicated that when a boy victimizes a girl, a girl victimizes a girl, and a girl victimizes a boy, most of the interview participants reported that both boys and girls are engaged in defending. This finding partly contradicts some other findings [ 24 , 25 ]. To explain these findings further, future researches are needed.

The current study revealed that students who were reported to be close friends, classmates, and relatives of the victims appear to defend the victim more than persons who either knew the victim or did not know them. Consistent with the current study, five studies included in one systematic review have examined the association between friendship with students involved in bullying situations and defending [ 33 ]. The studies revealed that youth were more likely to defend when the victimized youth was their friend, relative to a neutral peer. Similarly, some studies [ 26 , 27 ] revealed the association between bystanders’ close relationship with the victim and helping. For example, suppose a bystander is watching one’s own friend being bullied. In that case, the situation evokes more distressing emotions of empathy, sympathy, guilt, or anger and a stronger moral obligation and responsibility to intervene to help one’s friend [ 27 ].

The findings from the interview data also corroborated the quantitative results. The study showed that after bystanders witnessed bullying incidents, they evaluate their relationships (friendship, kinship, and disliking) with the bully, victim, or both before deciding to defend or passively watch the bullying incident. If bystanders witness victims with intimate relationships (friendship and blood relationship), they are more likely to defend the victim. Participants mentioned being close friends, relatives, and teachers with the victim as contributing factors to defending.

The finding that students who were reported to be relatives, close friends, and classmates of the bully appear to defend the victim more than persons who know and those who did not know the bully was unexpected. The qualitative interview also supported this finding. Some interview participants disclosed that having a close relationship with the bully would motivate the bystander to assist the victim. If bystanders are close friends or relatives of the bully, they can enter with confidence to protect the victim believing that the bully will not attack them later. Another possible reason for bystanders who have close relationships with the bully to stop the bully could be the belief that the problem will worsen and affect the whole family and its relatives. However, one participant reported that if bystanders have a close relationship with the bully, they might assist the bully to harm the victim further. Thus, further studies are needed.

Limitations of the study

The current study has some limitations. First, the study participants were limited to young and middle adolescents in East Gojjam Administrative Zone. This could reduce the diversity of the sample and the generalizability of the findings. Had I included adults as well, the findings could have been more generalizable. Second, the quantitative and qualitative findings on defending and passive bystanding behaviors were based on self-report measures. In self-reporting data, study participants may not always provide honest evidences. Third, the current research was cross-sectional, where cause and effect relationships could not be inferred.

Fourth, it is expected that if the perpetrator is older and/or physically stronger than the bystander, the bystander is more likely to remain passive during the incident of bullying. However, the current study did not collect information on age and/or physical differences between bully and bystander. If future studies include age and physical differences between the bystander and the bully, it would have more insights into school bullying literature.

Practice of defending among students attending their education in governmental primary and secondary schools in East Gojjam Administrative Zone was low. Close social relationships (being close friends, relatives, and classmates) with the victim and bully were significantly associated with the practice of defending. The findings of our qualitative study also showed that the number of passive bystanders was larger than defenders during witnessing school bullying; and bystanders’ close relationship with the victim, or/and bully as key determinants of defending.

High prevalence of passive bystanding behavior demand prevention programs that can discourage bullying in schools among bystanders in bullying situations through encouraging defending behavior irrespective of bully-victim sex, and helping bystanders establish close social relationships with the victim or/and bully.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets that support the findings of this study are not publically available at present. The authors need to use the data for further works before data could be made available. Besides, we have not received consent from participants to share the data on the web but, will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Hong JS, Espelage DL. A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: an ecological system analysis. Aggress Violent Behav. 2012;17:311–22.

Article   Google Scholar  

Smith PK, Sharp S, editors. The problem of school bullying. New York: USA Routledge; 1994.

Google Scholar  

Delfabbro P, Winefield T, Trainor S, Dollard M, Anderson S, Metzer J, et al. Peer and teacher bullying/victimization of South Australian secondary school students: prevalence and psychosocial profiles. Br J Educ Psychol. 2006;76:71–90.

Harris S, Petrie GF. Bullying: the bullies, the victims, the bystanders. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.; 2003.

Rigby K, Johnson B. Expressed readiness of Australian Schoolchildren to act as bystanders in support of children who are being bullied. Educ Psychol. 2006;26(3):425–40.

Amogne A. Indiscipline problems of high school students: the case of Ethio-Japan Hidasse Secondary School (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia). J Educ Pract. 2014;5(37):23–8.

Dereje T, Derese M, editors. Violence in Ethiopian schools: a study of some schools in Addis Ababa. Lausanne: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; 1997.

Habtamu W. Interpersonal violence in Addis Ababa secondary schools: an iceberg of challenges to the democratization of education in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: IER/AAU; 1998.

Kinde G, Meknnen S. Types, magnitude, predictors, and controlling mechanisms of aggression in secondary schools of Jimma zone. Ethiop J Educ Sci. 2007;2(2):39–61.

Yehualashet M, Negussie D. Children’s worlds national report Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: The African Child Policy Forum; 2015.

Getachew M, Ayu G, Desalegne A, Animut A, Fasil W, Chalachew T, et al. Prevalence of gender based violence and associated factors among female students of Menkorer high school in Debre Markos town. Northwest Ethiop Sci J Public Health. 2015;3(1):67–74.

Salmivalli C, Lagerspetz K, Bjorkqvist K, Osterman K, Kaukiainen A. Bullying as a group process: participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggress Behav. 1996;22:1–15.

Hawkins DL, Pepler DJ, Craig WM. Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bullying. Soc Dev. 2001;10(4):512–27.

O’Connell P, Pepler D, Craig W. Peer involvement in bullying: insights and challenges for intervention. J Adolesc. 1999;22:437–52.

Thornberg R, Jungert T. Bystander behavior in bullying situations: basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement and defender self-efficacy. J Adolesc. 2013;36(3):475–83.

Salmivalli C, Voeten M. Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behavior in bullying situations. Int J Behav Dev. 2004;28(3):246–58.

Oh I, Hazler RJ. Contributions of personal and situational factors to bystanders’ reactions to school bullying. Sch Psychol Int. 2009;30(3):291–310.

Gini G, Albiero P, Benelli B, Altoe G. Does empathy predict adolescents’ bullying and defending behavior? Aggress Behav. 2007;33:467–76.

Pronk J, Olthof T, Goossens FA. Factors influencing interventions on behalf of victims of bullying: a counterfactual approach to the social cognitions of outsiders and defenders. J Early Adolesc. 2014;36(2):267–91.

Pöyhönen V, Juvonen J, Salmivalli C. What does it take to stand up for the victim of bullying? The interplay between personal and social factors. Merrill-Palmer Q. 2010;56(2):143–63.

Obermann M. Moral disengagement in self-reported and peer-nominated school bullying. Aggress Behav. 2011;37:133–44.

Gini G, Pozzoli T, Bussey K. The role of individual and collective moral disengagement in peer aggression and bystanding: a multilevel analysis. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2015;43:441–52.

Pouwels JL, Lansu TAM, Cillessen AHN. Participant roles of bullying in adolescence: status characteristics, social behavior, and assignment criteria. Aggress Behav. 2016;42:239–53.

Fox CL, Jones SE, Stiff CE, Sayers J. Does the gender of the bully/victim dyad and the type of bullying influence children’s responses to a bullying incident? Aggress Behav. 2014;40:359–68.

Sainio M. Same- and other-sex victimization: risk factors, consequences, and protection by peers. Turku: University of Turku; 2013.

Thornberg R, Tenenbaum L, Varjas K, Meyers J, Jungert T, Vanegas G. Bystander motivation in bullying incidents: To intervene or not to intervene? West J Emerg Med. 2012;13(3):247–52.

Forsberg C, Thornberg R, Samuelsson M. Bystanders to bullying: fourth- to seventh-grade students’ perspectives on their reactions. Res Pap Educ. 2014;29(5):557–76.

WIDE1. research done 1994/5. 1994/5.

Creswell JW. Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 4th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.; 2012.

Creswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2009.

Braun V, Clarke V. Successful qualitative research a practical guide for beginners. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2013.

Ho R. Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with SPSS. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall; 2006.

Book   Google Scholar  

Lambe LJ, Cioppa VD, Hong IK, Craig WM. Standing up to bullying: A social ecological review of peer defending in offline and online contexts. Aggress Violent Behav. 2019;45:51–74.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Addis Ababa University for its financial support. We would also like to thank teachers at primary and secondary schools in East Gojjam Administrative Zone for their invaluable assistance in collecting data. Finally, we would like to acknowledge principals for facilitating the data collection and all participants of this study for their time and patience in responding to our interviews and questionnaires.

Addis Ababa University financially supported this study. However, the University did not have any role in the design of the study, data collection, and analysis, as well as in the interpretation of data and writing this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Institute of Educational and Behavioral Sciences, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia

Temesgen Demissie Eijigu

School of Psychology, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Seleshi Zeleke Teketel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

TDE has been involved in the study concept and design, data acquisition, drafting the manuscript, administrative, statistical analysis, and interpretation of the data and final proof of the manuscript. SZT has been involved in the study concept and design, technical and study supervision, and manuscript revision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Temesgen Demissie Eijigu .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The Department of Psychology at Addis Ababa University approved the study procedures for the dissertation, of which this manuscript is part of the dissertation. Psychology Department Ethical Committee exempted from requiring ethical clearance since this study collected data from schools with no physical or psychological harm on participants. Written informed consent was obtained from parents, and informed assent was obtained from student participants. The questionnaires were anonymous and fictitious names were assigned to interviewees. No payment was made to all participants, and interviews were conducted individually by the corresponding author.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Eijigu, T.D., Teketel, S.Z. Bullying in schools: prevalence, bystanders’ reaction and associations with sex and relationships. BMC Psychol 9 , 183 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-021-00685-5

Download citation

Received : 13 November 2020

Accepted : 09 November 2021

Published : 22 November 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-021-00685-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Passive bystanding
• Bystander reaction

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Teachers and Inclusive Practices Against Bullying: A Qualitative Study

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 06 August 2022
• Volume 32 , pages 2858–2866, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Giulio D’Urso   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1144-7222 1 ,
• Erika Fazzari 2 ,
• Luana La Marca 3 &
• Chiara Simonelli 4  

3458 Accesses

2 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The study investigates inclusivity practices and bullying management in a group of teachers. The study involved 18 volunteer teachers from upper secondary school in Italy (12 of them were women). They ranged in age from 33 to 66 years of age ( M  = 44.53). A semi-structured interview was adopted to explore their knowledge on inclusivity within teaching interventions or programmes, and experiences about bullying management. Data were collected using online interviews through specific platform such as Zoom, Skype, and Google Meet. The interviews were carried out between April 2020 and October 2020 in the participant’s native language. Using thematic analysis, we identified themes within individuals’ brief narratives. Analysis was inductive and involved line-by-line coding with codes deriving from brief narratives. Four major themes emerged: (1) Contact with the phenomenon of bullying (i.e., direct experience versus lack of experience); (2) Educational-didactic practices (i.e., lack of specific knowledge regarding educational-didactic practices versus attempted solutions); (3) Awareness of the bullying phenomenon and its effects on students; (4) Avoidance solutions of topics concerning bullying incidents (i.e., disengagement and disconfirmation responses). Theoretical and psycho-educational implications are discussed.

The study suggests some critical issues in teacher training.

This study suggests how sometimes bullying is not considered by teachers in a proper way.

These findings highlight how teachers should apply critical awareness to their inclusivity practices, starting with a revision of educational curricula, and appropriate training.

Similar content being viewed by others

Victims of Educator-Targeted Bullying: A Qualitative Study on Teacher Harmful Experience

Teachers’ Awareness and Sensitivity to a Bullying Incident: A Qualitative Study

Antonia Paljakka

Teachers’ Perspectives on Bullying

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

School bullying is a major phenomenon across the world (Due et al., 2009 ). A higher percentage of male compared to female pupils reported being physically bullied (6% versus 4%), whereas a higher percentage of female students compared to male students reported being the targets of rumors (18% vs. 9%) and being excluded from activities on purpose (7% versus 4%). (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2019 ). Bullying is defined as harmful behavior (i.e., physical, verbal, or indirect) by a person or a group that occurs repeatedly over time against a less powerful person as a target or victim (Salmivalli & Peets, 2018 ). Bullying between students based on ethnic background is very common, i.e., studies showed a high prevalence of bullying behaviours at school due to ethnic minority belonging (Kisfalusi et al., 2020 ; Kilpatrick et al., 2003 ). Moreover, it spreads because socio-community strategies are not promoted to counter bullying and victimization (Palladino et al., 2020 ; Longobardi et al., 2018 ). Aside from ethnic intimidation, another form of bullying is the bullying rooted in homophobia. The prevalence of homophobic bullying is relevant in all countries worldwide and in all social classes, as evidenced by previous studies in the USA and Europe in which it has been estimated that between 45 and 92% of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth have been victims of homophobic insults (e.g., Albaladejo-Blázquez et al., 2019 ). Homophobic bullying is a specific form of bullying behaviour motivated by homophobia and directed towards students who identify themselves as or who are perceived as (but do not necessarily identify as) lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (Rivers, 2011 ). The victimization of young people of sexual minorities negatively affects their mental health and academic performance, which may affect the victims even for decades, through memories of traumatic experiences (Rodríguez-Hidalgo & Hurtado-Mellado, 2019 ; Kosciw et al., 2010 ).

Adolescents who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) often face significant academic problems in school and adjustment difficulties (Kosciw et al., 2013 ). Despite gender identity not being a characteristic that in itself places students at risk for negative outcomes, different studies showed that LGBT youth are most often victims of discrimination, harassment, bullying that they experience from peers and adults at school in response to their sexual orientation or gender expression (McGuire et al., 2010 ).

In a social support theoretical framework, teachers are viewed as playing an important role in buffering the negative effects of school climate; they may do this by intervening when bullying or harassment occurs, inculcating a culture of inclusion and acceptance of LGBT students, and helping to create a safe learning environment (Swanson & Gettinger, 2016 ). Education, with its didactic actions, is a crucial institution and academic achievement is especially important among immigrants and other minorities as a path to upward mobility and other opportunities in life. Education also provides the knowledge, values, and skills needed by a developed country’s workforce (Agirdag et al., 2014 ). Teacher responses to bullying incidents are critical to addressing bullying in schools (Demol et al., 2020 ). However, teachers often lack sufficient knowledge of the phenomenon and consequently do not know how to intervene (Lester et al., 2018 ; Dake et al., 2003 ).

The Key-Role of Teachers in School Bullying

Besides Nordic countries, it is only during the past decades that there has been a growing awareness of bullying in Europe and elsewhere (O’Moore, 2000 ). The prevalent misconception among adults that bullying is a normal phase of development needs to be challenged. It is especially important for teachers that they understand what bullying is and its different forms, so they will then be able to identify it and deal with it in an appropriate manner (D’Urso et al., 2017 ; Dèttore et al., 2014 ). There is evidence that teachers tend to underestimate the level of bullying among school children (e.g., O’Moore, 2000 ). Furthermore, the results of a nationwide study on bullying in Irish schools showed that there are teachers who do not recognize bullying as a problem (O’Moore, 2000 ).

The literature indicated how teachers often do not notice or respond to incidents of bullying (Yoon et al., 2016 ). Moreover, teachers often hold faulty beliefs about bullying, such as, “helping victims will make bullying worse” and “victims are bullied because they did something to provoke the bully” (Horne et al., 2004 ). While bullying in schools has begun to receive attention, little is known about the relationship between classroom management and bullying in the classroom. Research from several fields suggests that several variables conspire to create environments where bullying is more likely to occur. These variables include harsh and punitive discipline methods, lower-quality classroom instruction, disorganized classroom and school settings, and student social structures characterized by antisocial behaviours (Allen, 2010 ).

Teachers’ response to bullying significantly varies, and their action in a bullying situation is a complex phenomenon that is influenced by many different factors. Existing studies suggest that teachers’ own beliefs and attitudes are involved in the process of evaluating a bullying situation (Yoon et al., 2016 ). Yoon and colleagues ( 2016 ) found that teachers were more likely to discipline bullies and to teach victims prosocial skills in physical bullying as opposed to relational or verbal. Moreover, teachers were generally less likely to discipline bullies of a different ethnicity than their own and more willing to discipline victims if their gender matched the gender of victims (Yoon, 2004 ). The study conducted by Yoon ( 2004 ) showed how self-efficacy of teachers in behavioural management, empathy toward victims, and perceived seriousness of bullying situations are important factors in predicting the likelihood of intervention by teachers in response to students’ bullying behaviours. In addition, teachers often refuse to talk about diversity topics in their lessons, and even ignore any bullying against ethnic or homophobic minorities (D’Urso & Petruccelli, 2021 ; Msibi, 2012 ; D’Urso et al., 2017 ).

Teachers may fail to intervene in bullying incidents for different reasons: because they are afraid to get involved; because they believe it is not their responsibility (particularly in extreme situations involving violence) or simply because they are not informed by students and do not perceive the bullying (Ellis & Shute, 2007 ). A study examined teachers’ perceptions and practices concerning school bullying prevention activities and showed that 86.3% of teachers had serious talks with both the bully and victim, 31.7% of teachers set aside classroom time to discuss bullying, 31.2% involved students in creating classroom rules against bullying. This study showed that teachers perceived post‐bullying activities as the most effective means of reducing bullying problems, followed by improved student supervision, and by environmental bullying prevention activities (Dake et al., 2003 ).

The Kiva programme is one of the most effective anti-bullying programs to implement prosocial attitudes and improve the school climate in motivational and relational terms, through the participation of all the actors of the educational scene (Garandeau et al., 2014 ). In fact, the literature has shown how this program increased empathy among peers, enhanced children’s antibullying attitudes, increased their ability to protect victims, and decreased reinforcing and assisting the bully (Kärnä et al., 2011 ). It was also found to have a significant impact on children’s perceptions of their teachers’ attitudes and their ability to reduce bullying, as well as teachers’ self-evaluation of their competence to reduce bullying (Ahtola et al., 2012 ; Veenstra et al., 2014 ).

The Current Study

This study wants to investigate how teachers manage diversity in the classroom; their knowledges about practices that facilitate inclusive and prosocial attitudes among peers, also considering their personal experience. Knowing the teachers’ point of view, following an inclusive school model that invites the active participation of all the actors of the educational scene, is the starting point for implementing interventions. In fact, the literature suggested how prejudices, with forms of disengagement or negative feelings, may impede the actions of teachers (Dessel, 2010 ; D’Urso & Symonds, 2021 ), and how teachers sometimes are not able to manage bullying in their classroom (e.g., D’Urso et al., 2017 ). According with Higgins’s ( 1989 ) theory, prejudices and false beliefs can block the need for teachers to educate themselves on issues they pretend not to see, even if they exist and need to be addressed. In other words, negative attitudes towards sexual and ethnic minorities can derive from an unclear perception of the representations of social reality and, consequently, of didactic actions, as well as from cognitive and social mechanisms that modulate the person’s own action. The research question that drives the study is: what are the strengths and weaknesses of teachers in identifying and managing bullying and its forms (ethnic and homophobic)? The rationale of this study is to add more insight into how risk factors related to teaching actions can be ameliorated, and protective factors be amplified, by providing a better understanding of the techniques that have been applied to reduce bullying and victimization in schools.

Participants and Procedure

The study involved 18 volunteer teachers from the upper secondary school in Italy (50% from the North). They ranged in age from 33 to 66 years of age (M = 44.53, SD = 9.92), and 12 of them were females (66.7%). Potential participants were identified and invited to take part in the study. All teachers hold a degree, and they have taught for at least 8 years. All teachers have teaching certifications to teach their own subject. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards and were approved by the ethic committee of Social and Forensic Psychology Academy (Rome). An anonymous link containing the description of the study objective and its purposes for the advancement of scientific knowledge on inclusive teaching methodologies was sent to those who accepted to participate in the study. Eighteen teachers at upper secondary school agreed to participate in the study. Teachers were interviewed online, via Zoom and/or other platforms, and transcribed omitting sensitive data. In fact, it was not possible to trace the identity of participants.

A semi-structured interview protocol was adopted to explore the knowledge on inclusive teaching methodologies and their experiences about bullying phenomenon. Questions about experiences on homophobic and ethnic bullying and their teaching career knowledge about inclusive strategies were asked. Specifically, the interview schedule was divided into three sections relating to specific experiences: (a) their direct knowledge of bullying phenomena and ways to deal with it within the classroom (examples of questions were: Have you ever had or become aware of school situations of homophobic bullying and/or bullying of foreign minors? If yes, how was the matter handled? Do you think the two forms of bullying are the same?); (b) their opinion on the usefulness of forms of inclusive education (examples of questions were: Do you think that in schools it is useful to use forms of teaching aimed at implementing inclusive attitudes towards people of different ethnic groups and towards gay and lesbian people? Why? Do you think there is a difference between the two forms of teaching? If yes, which ones?); (c) knowledge and application of inclusive teaching methodologies (examples of questions were: Do you know educational practices in this regard? Do you put them into practice? Do you know anyone who does? How are these topics addressed?).

Data Collection

Data were collected using online interviews through specific platform such as Zoom, Skype and Google Meet. The interviews were carried out between April 2020 and October 2020 in the participant’s native language. During the interview we used additional prompts to encourage the in-depth description of the lived experience, such as questions which sought greater detail on topics already spoken about or questions aimed at exploring the issues relating to bullying phenomena and teaching strategies. Interviews lasted between 20 min and 1 h, with an average length of 40 min. The interviews were audiotaped and subsequently transcribed verbatim for analysis. Verbatim transcription refers to the word-for-word reproduction of verbal data, where the written words are an exact replication of the audiotaped words (Poland, 1995 ). Quotations reported here were translated into English.

Data Analysis

All interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and entered into ATLAS.ti (Version 8), a research software program designed to assists in the coding and retrieval of qualitative data. In line with the Grounded Theory perspective (Chun Tie et al., 2019 ), a thematic analysis was carried out without a predetermined coding scheme. The words of the participants will bring out the recurring themes. Without generalizations, the interviews will be examined at the content level, through open and selective coding, to bring out the general and superordinate themes in relation to the strengths and weaknesses of the school system on the issues of the questions. They represent the general assumptions that will then body the theoretical conceptualization. An approach to analysis will be used as free as possible from theoretical prestructuring. Using thematic analysis, we identified themes within individuals’ brief narratives. Analysis was inductive and involved line-by-line coding with codes deriving from brief narratives. A three-step coding procedure was used (Corbin & Strauss, 2008 ). In the first step, the words used by participants were considered and used to generate meanings. In step 2, data were aggregated to identify the emerging codes and categories. In step 3, theoretical coding was applied to explore relationships between categories. Theoretical coding occurs at the conceptual level, merging the substantive codes and categories together into a more general and central theme (Corbin & Strauss, 2008 ). All interviews were double coded and the coders (by two authors of this paper: both are researchers in psychology and one of them is also a school psychologist) met to discuss codes and their definitions. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion until agreement was reached.

Four major themes emerged during the interviews: (1) Contact with the phenomenon of bullying (direct experience versus lack of experience); (2) Educational-didactic practices (lack of specific knowledge regarding educational-didactic practices versus attempted solutions; (3) Awareness of the bullying phenomenon and its effects on students; (4) Avoidance of the proposed topics (disengagement responses and disconfirmation responses). The themes are summarized in Fig. 1 .

Contact with the Phenomenon of Bullying (Direct Experience versus Lack of Experience)

Most participants (specifically, 14 teachers out of 18) declared that they had no direct experience with the bullying phenomena that were the subject of our study. Below are some significant statements:

“No, I’ve never seen any particular situation” (interview 1).

“It has never happened to hear about bullying problems” (interview 4).

“Absolutely not. I have never seen such phenomena in my classes “ (interviews 8 and 9)

“Not directly” (interview 11).

“No, no such situations have happened” (interview 10).

Only four teachers reported having direct experience of the phenomena within their classrooms, as follows:

“Yes, I observed both phenomena in my class” (interview 7).

“Yes, during my career I have witnessed bullying against foreigners” (interview 15).

“Yes, specifically, the phenomenon concerned bullying statements in the classroom” (interview17).

“To be honest, I have unfortunately witnessed bullying, but in all cases they were aimed at Italian (non-homosexual) boys. I believe that what happened was very serious, as it would have been if on the other side there had been a homosexual or foreign student” (interview 18).

Educational-Didactic Practices (Lack of Specific Knowledge Regarding Educational-Didactic Practices versus Attempted Solutions)

Most teachers (15 participants out of 18) highlighted the lack of specific knowledge of inclusive good practices, thus signal the need to receive specific training in this regard. Some statements were:

“I believe that these interventions would be among the special educational needs, inclusive teaching already exists” (interview 16).

“As far as gay / lesbian students are concerned, there are no educational practices for inclusion. Usually, it is the religion teachers and sometimes the Italian teachers who talk about these particular situations with the students in the classrooms” (interview 4).

“They are both important. However, for students of different ethnic backgrounds it is necessary to act towards them in didactic terms, while for gays/ lesbians it is necessary to act in educational terms as towards all students “ (interview 9).

“I don’t know of any educational practice, nor do I know anyone who does it” (interview 17).

“No, as I said I do not know targeted educational practices” (interview 18).

Only 3 of them reported having implemented some solutions, always declaring the absence of specific training in this regard.

“The school has always collaborated with the territorial SERT (i.e., Public Addictions Centre) and its experts, which protects the special educational needs, organizes film screenings and conferences with experts on various types of diversity. All teachers take inspiration from these activities to organize their teaching” (1 interview).

Always the first interviewee continued:

“I have often used the English language (but I am a teacher of Mathematics) to deal with various topics, so that everyone can use a language other than their mother tongue” “I recommend to students rather mature cultural circles that deal in an open, sensitive, and truthful way with these issues, I give them suggestions or tell them about my experiences with so-called “different” people, the evenings, the discussions, all things that all individuals have in common…there is no real difference” (interview 10).

“I think that in the classroom we must teach, first of all, that every form of diversity is to be considered as an enormous wealth and not as a limit. Regarding the inclusiveness of people of different ethnicities (as well as activities for linguistic improvement, which could be the first tool to promote integration in a class group), gays or lesbians, I would propose activities, supported by videos or interviews, that favor debate and exchange of ideas” (interview 17).

Awareness of the Phenomenon and its Effects on Students

It seems useful to report this theme that emerged in 4 teachers out of 18. They seem to agree with the common matrix of these phenomena and their potential deleterious effects on growing students.

“I think that the forms of bullying both regarding skin colour and sexual orientation create immense and deep wounds, so I don’t think there are differences” (interview 1).

“The two forms of bullying are not similar, but the underlying problem is similar, namely the fear and non-acceptance of diversity seen as a threat” (interview 7).

“However, I believe that in every form of bullying there is an identical matrix: discriminating against the “different” to hide one’s weaknesses” (Interview 9).

“I honestly think that any form of bullying is terrible, regardless of the victim’s origin or sexual orientation” (interview 18).

Avoidance of the Proposed Topics (Disengagement Responses and Disconfirmation Responses)

Avoidance question: disengagement responses

Some answers that were provided by 6 teachers out of 18 deserve attention. Here are the most significant:

“Every day I happen to hear some pupils (especially men) who show a repulsion towards gays or lesbians, saying that even in the family it is the same” (Interview 11).

“Foreigners are often marginalized but, at times, they isolate themselves” (interview 1).

“With regard to homophobic bullying it must be said that the children themselves sometimes hide their situation, so even the related problems very often do not reach the teachers” (interview 4).

Avoidance question: Disconfirmation responses

Five out of 18 teachers expressed an attitude of disconfirmation (e.g., they answered avoiding the question about bullying management going to another area) with respect to the issues dealt with which it seems useful to point out as follows:

“For students of different ethnic backgrounds there is certainly a need for targeted teaching, especially linked to the teaching of the language and culture of the host nation. For gay / lesbian people, I don’t think there is a need for personalized teaching” (interview 4).

“The values of the Italian Constitution underline equality and respect. If we follow this vocation, the greatest work is the choice of materials, not the teaching itself” (interview 7).

This work identifies several strengths and criticalities of the school system regarding inclusive practices towards minorities. The main result of the study shows that most of the participants stated that they had no direct experience with bullying phenomena and it highlighted the lack of specific knowledge of inclusive good practices. This result suggests the need to implement teacher training regarding inclusion practices due that most of the teachers interviewed reported that they have never had direct experiences with bullying. These results in fact seem to be not in line with the data reported by the Italian National Institute of Statistics (Istituto Nazionale di Statistica ISTAT ( 2015 )), which show how one out of two children suffers episodes of verbal, psychological and physical violence (although bullying can occur in the classroom and in other places such as schoolyards, corridors, or in cyberspace (cyberbullying)). Consequently, it can happen that teachers declare that they have no experience because they do not notice the phenomenon, or underestimate it (D’Urso et al., 2017 ).

Furthermore, the lack of knowledge of inclusive practices by teachers could lead many of them not to recognize, minimizing or ignoring bullying episodes. It is important that teachers understand properly what bullying is, the number of forms of bullying, and educational actions to deal with it. In this way, they can identify and respond appropriately to episode of victimization episodes, improving the school climate, that is the relationships between peers, and between teachers and pupils (O’Moore, 2000 , O’Moore et al., 1998 ).

The results suggest how many teachers, due to the lack of specific inclusive education practices, may not feel up to tackling or coping with bullying and, consequently, may not see the problem or deny it to protect themselves from feelings of personal/professional incompetence. In this sense, it is essential to change the way of thinking about teacher training, which must consider teaching good educational practices to combat bullying and protect pupils, helping teachers to feel effective not only from the point of view of transmission teaching skills but also with a view to “education in inclusiveness” (Polat, 2011 ; Atlas & Pepler, 1998 ).

Moreover, the study highlights how many teachers are unaware of the consequences of bullying. In fact, only 4 teachers out of 18 know the potential deleterious effects on the psychological health of students. Sometimes teachers do not go beyond the didactic learning relationship, and may fall into the error of not considering how bullying is a phenomenon that occurs in school contexts (Ellis & Shute, 2007 ), and which can have significant negative effects on all the actors involved, in terms of emotional and social well-being (Allen, 2010 ; Mishna et al., 2005 ; Dake et al., 2003 ). It is also possible that, on the other hand, teachers are aware of the phenomenon, but are unaware of it, thereby minimising its effects (Dèttore et al., 2014 ). This result, transversally, suggests how necessary an emotional grammar is in the relationships between pupil and teacher.

However, some teachers are aware of how important and complex the bullying phenomenon is and how the common matrix is the non-acceptance of diversity. The choice of included practices and teacher training should start from this awareness or lead towards this awareness. In this direction, inclusion perspective takes on its connotations which must be translated into the promotion of a positive climate in the classroom, through a communication that does not send the wrong messages but rather transmits values of respect and broadens the visions of all the actors in the educational scene (Peetsma et al., 2001 ; Polat, 2011 ).

The study suggests how many teachers also try to avoid the problems getting to the heart of the matter by making use of mechanisms of moral disengagement. Avoidance through the use of mechanisms such as the attribution of blame and advantageous comparison can help the person feel better with their conscience and therefore with their role. However, a reflection on the use of these mechanisms can lead to openness and a critical reflection towards some attitudes (D’Urso & Petruccelli, 2021 ; D’Urso & Symonds, 2021 ). Furthermore, other teachers show an attitude of disconfirmation, especially towards sexual minorities, which, in an even deeper way than disengagement, can reduce inclusive impulses and consequently not act to promote inclusion. In both cases, avoidance can induce the teacher not to see the dimensions of discomfort that students can sometimes experience. If teachers ignore issues like bullying, the message that gets to the actors involved is that the problem does not exist, especially to the victim, reinforcing the bully (Dèttore et al., 2014 ).

Although the study highlights relevant situations experienced by the Italian teachers at schools, it must also be considered in the light of the limitations it presents. The number of participants is small and does not allow to generalize the results obtained either to geographic areas or to all teachers. Subsequently, the use of interviews can implement the social desirability of the participants. Future studies could expand the sample, also through other methodological procedures (e.g., implicit tools or self-report questionnaires that also include a questionnaire on social desirability). The study suggests that it is necessary to investigate the tools through a mixed method approach in order not to leave salient aspects, especially from the teachers.

This study highlights how teachers should apply critical awareness to their inclusivity practices, starting with a revision of educational curricula, and appropriate training on issues that are especially important for the socio-emotional development of children and adolescents.

This exploratory study does not want to generalize on the perception of forms of bullying and their management, but wants to raise awareness of these issues. This is essential for new research to be developed to not only prevent but also monitor the actions of teachers, also implementing targeted programs in Italy (e.g., Kiva antibullying program). This study suggests how inclusive action by teachers should create a pluralistic school climate that values diversity in equal dignity, and pedagogical management teaching that favors the establishment of positive relationships, and which counteract prejudices, racism, and discrimination (Zadra, 2014 ). Furthermore, it seems necessary to define that the actors of inclusion are all the actors that populate the social scene. Teachers often believe that inclusive practices should be addressed to the individual child, forgetting that inclusion is something global that has no ethnicity or orientation. Inclusion becomes a protective factor for those who feel marginalized, because it promotes (should) prosociality in class, respect as well as a fundamental emotional grammar in the relationship between peers. Pretending bullying does not exist means, in fact, abdicating educational responsibility (D’Urso et al., 2017 ). It means not breaking the vicious cycle in bully-victim relationships. At least, the study highlights how some social resistances and the lack of knowledge of good practices can limit the view of bullying and victimization, thus creating a risk for secondary victimization.

Data availability

Data can be requested directly from the corresponding author.

Agirdag, O., Jordens, K., & Van Houtte, M. (2014). Speaking turkish in belgian primary schools: teacher beliefs versus effective consequences. Bilig , 70 , 7–28.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahtola, A., Haataja, A., Kärnä, A., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2012). For children only? Effects of the KiVa antibullying program on teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education , 28 (6), 851–859.

Albaladejo-Blázquez, N., Ferrer-Cascales, R., Ruiz-Robledillo, N., Sánchez-SanSegundo, M., Fernández-Alcántara, M., Delvecchio, E., & Arango-Lasprilla, J. C. (2019). Health-related quality of life and mental health of adolescents involved in school bullying and homophobic verbal content bullying. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16 (14), 2622.

Allen, K. P. (2010). Classroom management, bullying, and teacher practices. Professional Educator , 34 (1).

Atlas, R. S., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. The Journal of Educational Research , 92 (2), 86–99.

Chun Tie, Y., Birks, M., & Francis, K. (2019). Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers. SAGE Open Medicine , 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312118822927 .

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

D’Urso, G., & Symonds, J. (2021). Teacher attitudes towards the representation of homosexuality in film and television: a new self-report questionnaire. Sexuality & Culture , 25 (5), 1726–1741.

D’Urso, G., & Petruccelli, I. (2021). New and old forms of prejudices among teachers: an explorative study. World Futures .

D’Urso, G., Petruccelli, I., Schimmenti, A., & Pace, U. (2017). The role of attachment styles in the development of aggressive behavior among peers: An overview on homophobic bullying with a victim’s report. In A. M. Columbus (Eds.), Advances in psychology research (Vol. 131, pp. 209–226). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., Telljohann, S. K., & Funk, J. B. (2003). Teacher perceptions and practices regarding school bullying prevention. Journal of School Health , 73 (9), 347–355.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Demol, K., Verschueren, K., Salmivalli, C., & Colpin, H. (2020). Perceived teacher responses to bullying influence students’ social cognitions. Frontiers in Psychology , 11 , 592582.

Dessel, A. B. (2010). Effects of intergroup dialogue: Public school teachers and sexual orientation prejudice. Small Group Research , 41 (5), 556–592.

Dèttore, D., Antonelli, P., & Ristori, J. (Eds.) (2014). Il bullismo omofobico a scuola. Strategie di analisi e intervento basate sugli stereotipi e i ruoli di genere [Homophobic bullying at school. Analysis and intervention strategies based on stereotypes and gender roles ]. Rome: Alpes.

Due, P., Merlo, J., Harel-Fisch, Y., Damsgaard, M. T., soc, M. S., Holstein, B. E., ... & Lynch, J. (2009). Socioeconomic inequality in exposure to bullying during adolescence: A comparative, cross-sectional, multilevel study in 35 countries. American Journal of Public Health, 99 (5), 907–914.

Ellis, A. A., & Shute, R. (2007). Teacher responses to bullying in relation to moral orientation and seriousness of bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 77 , 649–663.

Garandeau, C. F., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). Tackling acute cases of school bullying in the KiVa anti-bullying program: A comparison of two approaches. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 42 (6), 981–991.

Higgins, E. T. (1989). Self-discrepancy theory: What patterns of self-beliefs cause people to suffer. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 22 , 93–136.

Horne, A., Orpinas, P., Newman-Carlson, D., & Bartolomucci, C. L. (2004). Elementary school Bully Busters program: Understanding why children bully and what to do about it. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 297–326). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Istituto Nazionale di Statistica [ISTAT]. (2015). Discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity. Rome, 2011. Retrieved from https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/30726 .

Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A. & Salmivalli, C. (2011). A large‐scale evaluation of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 4–6. Child Development , 82 (1), 311–330.

Kilpatrick Demaray, M., & Kerres Malecki, C. (2003). Perceptions of the frequency and importance of social support by students classified as victims, bullies, and bully/victims in an urban middle school. School Psychology Review , 32 (3), 471–489.

Kisfalusi, D., Pál, J., & Boda, Z. (2020). Bullying and victimization among majority and minority students: The role of peers’ ethnic perceptions. Social Networks , 60 , 48–60.

Kosciw, J. G., Palmer, N. A., Kull, R. M., & Greytak, E. A. (2013). The effect of negative school climate on academic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role of in-school supports. Journal of School Violence , 12 (1), 45–63.

Kosciw, J. G., Greyta, N. A., Diaz, E. M. & Bartkiewicz, M. J. (2010). The 2009 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. GLSEN, New York.

Lester, L., Waters, S., Pearce, N., Spears, B., & Falconer, S. (2018). Pre-service teachers: Knowledge, attitudes and their perceived skills in addressing student bullying. Australian Journal of Teacher Education , 43 (8), 30–45.

Longobardi, C., Iotti, N. O., Jungert, T., & Settanni, M. (2018). Student-teacher relationships and bullying: the role of student social status. Journal of Adolescence , 63 , 1–10.

McGuire, J. K., Anderson, C. R., Toomey, R. B., & Russell, S. T. (2010). School climate for transgender youth: a mixed method investigation of student experiences and school responses. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 39 (10), 1175–1188.

Mishna, F., Scarcello, I., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. (2005). Teachers’ understanding of bullying. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l'éducation , 718–738.

Msibi, T. (2012). ‘I’m used to it now’: experiences of homophobia among queer youth in South African township schools. Gender and Education , 24 (5), 515–533.

National Center for Educational Statistics (2019). Student reports of bullying: Results from the 2017 School Crime Supplement to the National Victimization Survey . US Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2015056 .

O’Moore, A. M., Kirkham, C., & Smith, M. (1998). Bullying in schools in Ireland: A nationwide study. Irish Educational Studies , 17 (1), 254–271.

O’Moore, M. (2000). Critical issues for teacher training to counter bullying and victimisation in Ireland. Aggressive Behavior , 26 (1), 99–111.

Palladino, B. E., Nappa, M. R., Zambuto, V., & Menesini, E. (2020). Ethnic bullying victimization in Italy: the role of acculturation orientation for ethnic minority adolescents with differing citizenship statuses. Frontiers in Psychology , 11.

Peetsma, T., Vergeer, M., Roeleveld, J., & Karsten, S. (2001). Inclusion in education: Comparing pupils’ development in special and regular education. Educational Review , 53 (2), 125–135.

Poland, B. D. (1995). Transcription quality as an aspect of rigor in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry , 1 (3), 290–310.

Polat, F. (2011). Inclusion in education: A step towards social justice. International Journal of Educational Development , 31 (1), 50–58.

Rivers, I. (2011). Homophobic bullying: Research and theoretical perspectives . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rodríguez-Hidalgo, A. J., & Hurtado-Mellado, A. (2019). Prevalence and Psychosocial Predictors of Homophobic Victimization among Adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 16 (7), 1243 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071243 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Salmivalli, C., & Peets, K. (2018). Bullying and victimization. In Bukowski, M. Laursen, B., & Rubin, K. H. (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (p. 302–321). The Guilford Press.

Swanson, K., & Gettinger, M. (2016). Teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and supportive behaviors toward LGBT students: Relationship to Gay-Straight Alliances, antibullying policy, and teacher training. Journal of LGBT Youth , 13 (4), 326–351.

Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Huitsing, G., Sainio, M., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). The role of teachers in bullying: The relation between antibullying attitudes, efficacy, and efforts to reduce bullying. Journal of Educational Psychology , 106 (4), 1135–1143.

Yoon, J., Sulkowski, Michael, L., & Bauman, S. A. (2016). Teachers’ responses to bullying incidents: effects of teacher characteristics and contexts. Journal of School Violence , 15 , 91–113.

Yoon, J. S. (2004). Predicting Teacher Interventions in Bullying Situations. Education & Treatment of Children , 27 , 37–45.

Google Scholar  

Zadra, C. (2014). Schooling and lifelong learning. The role of transversal key competences. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 116 , 4727–4731.

Download references

Open Access funding provided by the IReL Consortium.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Giulio D’Urso

Psychologist and Psychotherapist, Rome, Italy

Erika Fazzari

CIPA Southern Institute, Psychologist, Psychotherapist in training, Sicily, Italy

Luana La Marca

Istituto di Sessuologia Clinica, Sapienza University Rome, Rome, Italy

Chiara Simonelli

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giulio D’Urso .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards and were approved by the ethic committee of Social and Forensic Psychology Academy (Rome).

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

D’Urso, G., Fazzari, E., La Marca, L. et al. Teachers and Inclusive Practices Against Bullying: A Qualitative Study. J Child Fam Stud 32 , 2858–2866 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02393-z

Download citation

Accepted : 21 July 2022

Published : 06 August 2022

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02393-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Rounded theory
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

•   PEARL Home
• 04 University of Plymouth Research Theses
• 01 Research Theses Main Collection

Bullying in a primary school : a case study

Bullying has become a significant issue for schools and one that has attracted the media spotlight. It has also received considerable attention from the research community since the late 1980s following the tradition established through the work of many Scandinavian researchers. Much of the research has been longitudinal and sought to illuminate the experience of children who bullied or were being bullied. There has been considerably less research into teachers' and parents' understanding and experience of bullying between school children. This thesis seeks to rectify that situation by examining the views of Year 5 and 6 pupils, teachers and a sample of parents from a case study primary school. The research was conducted over a period of two years in a school referred to under the pseudonym Nicholas Street. The thesis investigates three questions: first, the meaning that key parties attribute to the term bullying; second, the nature of their experience in the context of the school; and third, their views on how it is handled or resolved. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and reinterviews with teachers; unstructured and semi-structured interviews, questionnaires and a selection 'game' with pupils and semi-structured interviews and questionnaires with parents. All interviews were audio-taped and transcribed onto a computer database (Hyperqual) and questionnaire responses from pupils were analysed with the support of computer technology (SPSS). The inductive analysis commenced with a case study of a single pupil, Lorraine. This provided the reference point for the structured analysis of bullying issues in the wider context of the school. Findings include: 0 the differing ways that bullying was defined by the parties; 0 the emergent distinction between a relationship that was founded on bullying and an action that might be described as bullying; 0 that bullying usually occurred between pupils in the same class and was not a clandestine activity nor unknown to non-participants (the secretive image); 0 that, although there was a degree of satisfaction reported by all parties concerning methods deployed in handling bullying, there was also inconsistency, confusion and a lack of awareness of policy.

Collections

Commissioning body.

The following license files are associated with this item:

• Original License

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Children (Basel)
• PMC10137246

A Multilevel Analysis of Factors Influencing School Bullying in 15-Year-Old Students

Yu-jiao wang.

1 School of Education Science, Liupanshui Normal University, Liupanshui 553004, China

2 Chinese Academy of Education Big Data, Qufu Normal University, Qufu 273100, China

Associated Data

The original data of the study can be found in the website https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/ (accessed on 15 October 2021).

Background: School bullying causes serious impacts on adolescents’ physical and mental health. Few studies have explored the various factors influencing bullying by combining different levels of data. Methods: Based on the database of four Chinese provinces and cities of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2018, this study used a multilevel analysis model that combined school-level variables and student-level variables to explore the influencing factors of students being bullied. Results: Students’ gender, grade repetition, truancy and arriving late for class, economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS), teacher support, and parent support had significant explanatory power on school bullying on the student-level; on the school-level, school discipline atmosphere and competitive atmosphere among students had significant impacts on school bullying. Conclusions: Boys, students who have repeated grades, truancy and arriving late for class, and students with lower ESCS suffer from more severe school bullying. When developing school bullying interventions, teachers and parents should pay more attention to those students and provide more emotional support and encouragement to them. Meanwhile, students in schools with a lower discipline atmosphere and a higher level of competitive atmosphere experience greater levels of bullying, and schools should create more positive and friendly environments to prevent bullying events.

1. Introduction

In the 1980s, a young Norwegian boy committed suicide after suffering school bullying; since then, school bullying has begun to enter the field of researchers and has become an important research topic [ 1 ]. Nowadays, it is receiving more and more attention from many international organizations. Among the research topics related to school bullying, the primary focuses include the following: What characteristics cause individuals to be more likely to suffer from school bullying? Why are individuals with these characteristics easily bullied by others? What are the factors that cause bullying in schools? These issues have always been topics of great concern to researchers both nationally and worldwide.

Previous studies have shown that various types of factors affect students’ exposure to bullying, including individual characteristics, schools, and families [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]. Ruan examined the influencing factors of student suffering from school bullying through factor analysis and logistic regression [ 2 ]. The results showed that, from the cross-sectional dimension analysis, the ranking of factors was as follows: students’ individual characteristics, schools’ background features, and emotional support.

From a logistic regression of the longitudinal section, among the students’ background characteristics, boys were more likely to suffer from school bullying than girls; senior students were more likely to suffer from bullying than those in lower grades; and students with lower academic performance scores were more likely to suffer from school bullying than those with higher scores [ 2 ]. However, some studies have found different results. Regarding age, for example, Rigby and Slee found that younger children were more likely to experience bullying than older children [ 8 ]. With age increase, bullying tended to stop; the reason for this may be because individuals acquire more social skills that improve self-esteem [ 9 ].

In terms of school background characteristics, Ruan’s analysis showed that, compared with urban schools, students in rural schools suffered more school bullying; students in private schools suffered more school bullying than those in public schools; the more repeating students on a campus, the higher the proportion of school bullying, and the better the school discipline atmosphere, the fewer the bullying incidents [ 2 ]. Lastly, the class size, school size, and teacher–student ratio of a school’s background characteristics had no significant impact on students’ school bullying [ 2 ]. Contrary to Ruan’s results, however, Huang’s study found that school location (urban or rural) and school type (public or private) had no effect on students’ school bullying [ 5 ].

In addition, teacher support plays a very important role in school background characteristics. Effective teacher support greatly reduces the occurrence of school bullying, but if teachers treat students unfairly, it may increase the occurrence [ 5 ]. Regarding the home environments of school bullies and victims, children who perpetrated bullying reported that their parents did not exercise caring and supervisory functions, sometimes even neglecting them [ 7 ]. This is in contrast to the home environments of bullying victims, who had very close relationships with their parents and were, therefore, vulnerable to overprotection. In addition, Fu et al. pointed out that students from families with lower socioeconomic statuses were more likely to be victims of more severe types of bullying, as school is an integral indicator of social stratification [ 10 ]. Parental emotional support was an important family factor affecting students’ suffering from school bullying, and insufficient parental emotional support was an important reason why many young people suffered from school bullying and could not cope effectively [ 5 ].

In conclusion, it can be seen that school bullying is affected by various factors of individuals, families, and schools, but there have been some contradictions among past studies, such as age and school type, which may be related to sampling or research methods. In addition, few studies have explored the various factors influencing bullying by combining different levels of data. When discussing this topic, these influencing factors should be considered comprehensively, but different levels cannot be analyzed at the same level, which leads to analytical bias. When facing these data from different sources, a multilevel analysis method should be used for an accurate analysis.

The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which was first implemented by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2000, added a survey of students’ experiences of bullying in schools for the first time in 2015, including three types of bullying: relational bullying, verbal bullying, or physical bullying. In 2018, PISA continued to conduct a school-bullying survey in 75 countries and regions, showing the close concern that educators around the world have toward the problem. School bullying should be a high-priority concern for education policy makers and school administrators. Moreover, the PISA data includes those from both the students and the schools, which meets the requirements of multi-level analysis.

Therefore, based on the survey data of PISA 2018, our study used a multilevel analysis model and combines school-level and student-level variables to jointly explore various factors affecting school bullying and reveal the specific causes behind this phenomenon. Individual level variables included school bullying (including total school bullying, relational bullying, verbal bullying, and physical bullying), students’ gender, grade, education type, grade repetition, truancy and arriving late for class, family economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS), teacher support, and parent support they perceived, some of which were discussed above. School level variables included the describing characteristics of schools, such as school location, school type, school size, or school atmosphere, etc. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether these factors have impacts on students’ bullying and what the effect of the impact is.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. materials.

The data for this study came from the PISA 2018 survey database of four provinces and cities in mainland China (Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang). First, we downloaded the 2018 global Student questionnaire data file and School questionnaire data file from the PISA website https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/ (accessed on 15 October 2021). For a brief introduction to PISA and descriptions of the questionnaires, see Appendix A . Then, we selected the data for mainland China. The student questionnaire data of mainland China includes 12,058 middle school students aged 15 (from 15 years and 3 months to 16 years and 2 months), and the school questionnaire data includes 361 schools. Finally, after deleting samples with missing data and those unable to meet the statistical criteria, the sample size of this study was 11,497 students from 334 schools (see Appendix A for detailed standards and procedures).

2.2. Research Variables

The variables of our study included individual-level variables of students and environment-level variables of school.

The student-level variables included the following: suffering from school bullying (including total school bullying, relational bullying, verbal bullying, and physical bullying), which was the outcome variable of the study; gender, grade, education type, grade repetition, truancy and arriving late for class, family economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS, teacher support, and parent support, which were predictor variables.

The school-level variables were divided into two categories. One was variables derived from the group level describing the characteristics of the schools, including school location, school type, school size, class size, student–teacher ratio, proportion of boys, proportion of special needs students, proportion of students without graduation certificates, student behaviors that hindered learning, and teacher behaviors that hindered learning. All of the above variables were completed by the principal (or principal representative) of each school. The other type was variables based on shared constructs, in which group characteristics were derived from combinations of group members and contained the attitudes, perceptions, or behaviors of group members. The variables were taken from student questionnaires, but they were aggregated by group, averaged, and then integrated into group variables, including school discipline atmosphere, competitive atmosphere among students, and cooperative atmosphere among students. See Appendix B for question descriptions, original corresponding items, and coding of these variables. Descriptive statistics of the above variables are shown in Table 1 .

Descriptive statistics of the variables.

1 For categorical variables, the Average refers to the percentage of the latter category in each variable. For example, for Gender, 0.521 represents that the proportion of male students is 52.1%; for Grade repetition, 0.063 represents that the proportion of students’ repeating grade is 6.3%; and for School type, 0.140 represents that the proportion of private schools is 14%. Other categorical variables are similarly interpreted.

2.3. Statistical Analyses

The statistical software packages used in this study were SPSS 24 and HLM 6.08. The statistical methods included reliability and validity tests, a regression analysis, and a multilevel model analysis.

In many social science research fields, such as psychology, education, and management, data are often in nested structures (nested data, multilayer data, or multilevel data) where, for example, students are nested under a class, and the class is under the school. The sample data from such nested structures are generally not independent, which violates traditional statistical assumptions (residual independence and a homogeneous regression slope). Using a traditional OLS regression method to analyze nested samples and, thus, ignoring the problem of hierarchical differences can bring about statistical estimation bias. If the conclusions obtained from a high-level data analysis are inferred with lower-level data, it is easy to overestimate the lower-level conclusions, resulting in “ecological fallacy”. Conversely, if the conclusions obtained from a lower-level data analysis are inferred with higher-level data, this leads to “atomistic fallacy” [ 11 ]. Therefore, it is very important to understand the variation caused by different groups using a multilevel analysis method.

An analysis for nested data has been gradually developed, and finally in the 1990s, a complete and systematic theory and method was developed, namely the multilevel model analysis or multilevel analysis (HLM); in addition, HLM software was designed for multilevel analyses. Using the multilevel analysis method enables the analysis of multilevel data in one model at the same time, reducing the statistical errors mentioned above, and it can analyze the possible interactions between different levels’ data, describing the characteristics of a phenomenon more objectively. In this study, using HLM software, we combined school-level variables and student-level variables to explore the influencing factors that affected school bullying and attempted to reveal the specific causes behind this phenomenon.

A structure diagram of this study is shown in Figure 1 .

The structure of the study.

As suggested by Bryk and Raudenbush [ 12 ], a multilevel analysis should include the implementation of four sub-models: Null Model, Random Coefficient Model, Intercepts as Outcomes Model, and Slopes as Outcomes Model. Since our study did not specifically explore the moderating effects of the school-level contextual variable group, Slopes as Outcomes Model was not performed. Therefore, this study analyzed three multilevel models (see Table 2 for total school bullying): Model I (Null Model) was used to test the proportion of group variation to the overall variance in student suffering from school bullying and to three different types of bullying (that is, the contextual effect between different schools), which provided a reasonable basis for a subsequent multilevel analysis to confirm the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of the dependent variable, and the between-group variation component could meet the requirements for performing a multilevel model analysis. Model II (Random Coefficient Model) was used to test the direct impacts of student-level variables on school bullying. Model III (Intercepts as Outcomes Model) was used for testing the direct impacts of school-level variables on school bullying. Model III was the full model for this study.

Multilevel analysis results of the influencing factors of students suffering from school bullying.

3.1. Model I: Null Model

No explanatory variables were included in the Null Model; instead, it only contained the result variables, and the corresponding formula is shown in Appendix C .

As shown in the results of Table 2 , the between-group variation component (τ 00 ) of suffering from school bullying was significantly different from 0 (χ 2 = 444.065, p < 0.001), indicating that the degree of student suffering from school bullying in the same school was similar, but there were significant differences in different schools. Similarly, as shown in Table A1 , Table A2 and Table A3 (these three tables can be seen in Appendix C ), the between-group variance components (τ 00 ) of relational bullying (χ 2 = 409.931, p = 0.003), verbal bullying (χ 2 = 387.921, p = 0.020), and physical bullying (χ 2 = 470.758, p < 0.001) were also significantly different from 0. These results illustrate that the variation between groups could not be ignored. In order to avoid biased interpretation of the results, it was necessary to use the multilevel model for data analysis.

3.2. Model II: Random Coefficient Model

In this model, the student-level variables are not uncentered, with the exception of grades, teacher support, and parent support, which were generally grand-centered. Kreft pointed out that categorical variables must not be mean centered [ 13 ]. If a continuous variable is meaningful for 0, it does not need to be centered because, whether it is centered or not, it has no effect on the estimated value and significance but only affects the interpretation of the results. To make an interpretation meaningful, it needed to be mean-centered in both Level 1 (student-level) and Level 2 (school-level) and always use grand-centered variables which is equivalent to the original data, while group-centered variables are not equivalent to the original data [ 13 ]. The corresponding formula is shown in Appendix C .

From the results in Table 2 , it can be seen that, in addition to grade and education type, gender, grade repetition, and truancy and arriving late for class at the individual level all had significant positive explanatory powers on students’ total school bullying. Both teacher support and parent support have significant negative explanatory powers on students’ total school bullying.

Similarly, relational bullying, verbal bullying, and physical bullying showed the same effects, as shown in Table A1 , Table A2 and Table A3 (these three tables can be seen in Appendix C ). When teacher support increased by 1, total school bullying decreased by 0.562, relational bullying decreased by 0.195, verbal bullying decreased by 0.180, and physical bullying decreased by 0.188. When parent support increased by 1, total school bullying decreased by 0.391, relational bullying decreased by 0.142, verbal bullying decreased by 0.133, and physical bullying decreased by 0.117. Lastly, ESCS only had a significant negative explanatory power on students suffering from total school bullying and physical bullying but had no significant effect on relational bullying and verbal bullying. When family ESCS increased by 1, total school bullying decreased by 0.066, and physical bullying decreased by 0.042.

The above results indicate that boys suffered from a greater degree of school bullying than girls (including total school bullying and three types of bullying), and students who repeated grades, were truant, and arrived late in the past two weeks were more severely bullied than those who had not. The lower the student family ESCS is, the higher the levels of school bullying and physical bullying are. The lower students perceived teacher support and parent support, the more severe the school bullying.

3.3. Model III: Intercepts as Outcomes Model

In this model, with the exception of the variables of school location, school type, proportion of special needs students, and proportion of students without graduation certificates being uncentered, all the other variables were grand-centered.

The results in Table 2 and Table A1 , Table A2 and Table A3 (these three tables can be seen in Appendix C ) show that only the two variables of school discipline atmosphere and competitive atmosphere among students had a significant impact on student suffering from total school bullying and three other types of bullying. The variable of school discipline atmosphere had a significant negative explanatory power on the degree of student suffering from bullying, while the variable of competitive atmosphere among students had a significant positive explanatory power on the degree of student suffering from bullying. The analysis results of Model III show that, when the school discipline atmosphere increased by 1, school bullying decreased by 0.572, relational bullying decreased by 0.198, verbal bullying decreased by 0.143, and physical bullying decreased by 0.231. However, when the variable of competitive atmosphere among students increased by 1, school bullying increased by 0.806, relational bullying increased by 0.263, verbal bullying increased by 0.289, and physical bullying increased by 0.245.

These results indicate that the worse a school’s discipline atmosphere is, the more severe the level of school bullying students experienced is, i.e., students in schools with poor discipline atmospheres experienced a greater degree of school bullying than those in schools with better discipline atmospheres. However, the higher the competitive atmosphere among students is, the higher the level of school bullying students experienced is, i.e., students in schools with high inter-student competition atmospheres experienced greater levels of bullying than those in schools with low inter-student competition atmospheres.

The remaining variables of school background characteristics all did not have significant impacts on students’ suffering from school bullying or the three other types of bullying.

4. Discussion

4.1. influence of student-level variables on students being bullied.

According to the results in Model II, in addition to grade and education type, the student-level variables of gender, grade repetition, and truancy and arriving late for class all have significant positive effects on total school bullying and the three types of bullying, while teacher support and parents’ support both have significant negative explanatory power on students’ total school bullying and the three types of bullying. ESCS only negatively affects students’ total school bullying and physical bullying but not relational bullying and verbal bullying. The results above show that boys suffer from a greater degree of school bullying than girls, and students who have repeated grades, who are truant, and who have been late for class in the past two weeks are more severely bullied than those who have not. The lower the family’s ESCS is, the higher the level of total school bullying and physical bullying are. The lower the perceived teacher support and parents support are, the more severe the school bullying is. The above results are discussed further below.

First, in our study, we found that boys suffered more severe bullying than girls, both for total school bullying and for the three different types of bullying, which is partly consistent with previous studies. Previous studies have confirmed that boys are at greater risk of school bullying than girls [ 8 , 14 ]. In terms of different types of bullying, previous studies have found that girls are more susceptible to relational bullying [ 15 ], and data from OECD countries also show that girls are more likely to be exposed to “spreading rumors by other students” [ 16 ], while boys are more likely to suffer from physical bullying [ 17 ]. Based on the data analysis of PISA 2015, Huang found that boys were more prone to physical bullying than girls [ 5 ], such as physical hitting or pushing. In addition, boys were also more likely to experience verbal bullying than girls, such as being teased by others. In summary, boys are at greater risk of bullying than girls. The reason for this may be that boys are more prone to agitation and conflict than girls, which makes boys significantly more likely than girls to be bullied or to bully others. Therefore, we should pay more attention to the male group and give them more help related to the phenomenon of bullying.

Second, our study found that students who repeated grades, had absenteeism, and were late to class within the last two weeks were more likely to be bullied at school. In addition to poor academic performance, repeat-grade students may also have difficulties with the development of social and emotional skills. When these older students study and live with new, younger classmates, they may be very easily discriminated against, laughed at, or teased by other students and may even be socially excluded [ 18 ], which may, in turn, lead to bullying incidents [ 19 ]; this is similar for students with absenteeism and lateness. According to previous studies, disciplinary violations such as those for truancy, skipping class, and lateness may be external manifestations of students rejecting learning. If students are unwilling to enter a classroom, or even skip class, it is naturally difficult for them to achieve good academic performances [ 20 ], while students with poor academic performances are more likely to be bullied, which has been confirmed by previous research [ 10 , 21 ]. On the other hand, those who are bullied protect themselves by avoiding school or being truant, and then these truant students have more difficulties keeping up with teaching or are unable to obtain help from the school due to not showing up to school on time. This also weakens the connection between students and the school environment, leading to poor academic achievement [ 22 , 23 ]. Therefore, there may be a mutual causal relationship between truancy, absenteeism, lateness, and other disciplinary violations and students being bullied on campus. To reduce bullying on campus, educators can start with the strict management of students’ disciplinary violations to ensure that students can attend school on time because this is a premise to ensure quality of learning. In this way, it is possible to improve their academic achievements and help them establish a close relationship with the school, making it easier to seek help from teachers and classmates, which is conducive to reducing the occurrence of bullying.

Furthermore, the results show that students’ ESCS had a significant negative impact on students’ total school bullying and physical bullying, which meant that the lower a student’s family economic sociocultural status is, the higher the degrees of overall school and physical bullying is. This result is consistent with the results of Huang and Zhao [ 23 ], as well as empirical research from the Netherlands, which showed that adolescents with lower social status had a higher proportion of physical and psychological symptoms, which were more likely to be aggression by peers [ 24 ]. Therefore, schools and teachers should pay more attention to students from disadvantaged backgrounds and carry out targeted psychological counseling and assistance to reduce the risk of bullying for these students.

Finally, this study found that the higher the levels of teacher support and parent support perceived by students are, the lower the level of suffered school bullying is. A close parent–child relationship can help students obtain more help when they suffer from school bullying, and parents who care about and support their children emotionally can not only help their children decrease school bullying but can also relieve children’s psychological pressure and pain after students are bullied [ 25 ]. In terms of teacher–student relationships, teachers’ actions of supporting, caring about students’ academic progress, and expecting students’ success make students feel accepted, respected, and cared for. On the one hand, students can better seek help from teachers; on the other hand, closeness and harmony of teacher–student relationships greatly reduces the chance of negative interpersonal behaviors, such as bullying [ 26 ]. Thus, both families and schools are key forces to fight against school bullying, and home–school cooperation can better build antibullying barriers in students’ lives and learning.

In conclusion, when developing school bullying interventions, more attention should be paid to male students, students who repeat grades, are late, or are absent from class, and students with lower ESCS. For example, physical bullying of male students should be paid concern. Pushing, beating, and other similar behaviors should be stopped in time. As for students with low academic performance, parents should encourage and support their children rather than criticize and blame them. Teachers should also pay more attention to students who are often late, absent, or from lower backgrounds and should strengthen their ability to recognize bullying incidents, especially the two types of relationship bullying and verbal bullying, because they will not cause obvious physical harm, making it very difficult to identify. In addition, teachers can pay close attention to the way students make friends and interact with each other. They can observe whether a particular student is excluded or isolated in group activities, PE class, and after class. Once they find signs of bullying, appropriate treatment should be provided the first time to prevent the occurrence of the event. Finally, teachers should consult more professional counselors, attend seminars on school bullying cases, and flexibly use effective ways to deal with bullying cases to reduce the harm caused by bullying.

4.2. Influence of School-Level Variables on Students Being Bullied

The results of Model III show that only the school discipline atmosphere and the competitive atmosphere among students of the school environment level variables have significant impacts on the total school bullying and the three types of bullying. School discipline atmosphere has a significant negative explanatory power on school bullying, while the competitive atmosphere among students has a significant positive explanatory power on students being bullied, indicating that students in schools with a worse discipline atmosphere experience greater levels of bullying than students in schools with a better one; students in schools with a high level of inter-student competition are more likely to experience higher levels of school bullying than those in schools with a lower level. A good school discipline atmosphere helps protect students and make them less vulnerable to school bullying [ 23 ], but the competitive atmosphere among students may make some students feel jealous or hate other classmates, which in turn increases the chances of students being bullied at school.

First, the negative correlation between school disciplinary atmosphere and students suffering from bullying has been confirmed by some studies [ 2 , 18 , 27 ]. A good school discipline atmosphere helps to protect students and make them less vulnerable to school bullying [ 23 ]. The reason for this may be because when students learn and interact in a well-ordered environment, they are often more willing to engage in it because they feel safe, and the trigger factors for student aggressive behavior are greatly reduced [ 28 ]. Therefore, when formulating plans to prevent school bullying at the school level, more consideration should be given to the important role of school disciplinary atmosphere, which is not only an invisible school culture but also can be reflected in the implementation of school rules and discipline. In addition, this is also consistent with strengthening the management of skipping class, truancy, lateness, and other disciplinary violations mentioned above.

Second, atmospheres of competition and cooperation among students in schools are important aspects of the school climate [ 29 ]. This is the first time that this topic has appeared in the PISA questionnaire survey. The results show that competitive atmosphere had a significant positive explanation for the degree of school bullying. However, cooperative atmosphere did not have a significant impact on student suffering from school bullying. This is an interesting result, suggesting that competitive and cooperative atmospheres at the school level may not be two opposing aspects, and they may have their own working principles.

The positive association between perceived competitive atmosphere and school bullying has been supported by some studies. Volk proposed that a competitive atmosphere may make some students feel jealous or hateful toward other classmates, which in turn increases the chances of students being bullied at school [ 30 ]. Wang’s research showed that both academic competition and social competition perceived by primary and secondary school students were significantly positively correlated with school bullying [ 31 ]. In another research project, Wang proposed that a vicious, competitive atmosphere formed among students not only led to campus bullying [ 32 ] but also generated countless indifferent bystanders who saw the campus bullying but were unwilling to lend a helping hand. Therefore, when intervening in bullying in schools, students should be consciously guided to engage in positive and benign competition and to avoid vicious competition. In this way, good peer relationships in the school environment form, and the occurrence of bullying is reduced.

Finally, a surprising result in our study is that student behaviors and teacher behaviors that hinder learning in schools both had no effect on students’ experiences of school bullying. A previous study regarded these two variables as a measure of school spirit [ 33 ]. Through a multilevel analysis based on PISA 2015 data from four provinces and cities in China, the study found that student and teacher behaviors that hindered learning had significant negative impacts on students’ scientific literacy without controlling for student and school ESCS values; however, when controlling for them, the effects were smaller and no longer significant. Due to the large number of control variables involved in our study and different combinations of control variables producing various different results, this part may therefore need to be further explored in future studies.

Here are some suggestions on the results. Students spend a lot of time in school. As an important place of education, school plays a decisive role in the formation of students’ personality and behavior. When the school atmosphere is positive and friendly, bullying can be reduced. Schools should instruct students to learn ways to protect themselves, identify bullying in schools, and seek help from teachers and classmates to better protect themselves. Schools should strengthen the moral education of students and cultivate students’ good sense of justice and moral sense, making students brave enough to stop school bullying or report bullying to teachers.

The psychological counseling institution of schools should play an active role in school bullying and treat every bullying case as a major campus crisis. In addition to isolation, placement, and counseling, it is important to continuously observe and follow up the development of physical and mental status of the cases, both of the perpetrator and the victim, making sure they are physically and mentally healthy. In addition, schools should strengthen students’ interpersonal communication and life education. Students must learn to respect each other’s lives and cherish their own. They must understand that certain behaviors should not be allowed, such as making fun of each other’s sexual orientation and physical characteristics. It must be made clear that students’ bullying behavior may directly or indirectly kill their classmates. When students are aware that bullying can have such serious consequences, it may be effective in reducing the incidence of school bullying.

At last, bullying should not be seen as a problem of a few but as one of society’s problems. The whole society should work together to create a friendly campus environment. Education authorities should integrate schools, neighboring communities, police and government organs, social welfare organizations, mental health units and other relevant social resources, and professional assistance to provide students with the most appropriate treatment. In order to prevent bullying, teachers and schools are encouraged to make more use of social resources. A variety of professional teams, including school principals, directors, tutors, psychological consultants, students, parents, juvenile police officers, social workers of welfare organizations, and other experts should work together to investigate, evaluate, and formulate counselling programs to effectively reduce bullying incidents in schools.

4.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

Because the selected variables were all obtained from the PISA test and were limited by the scope of the database, our study may not contain all the factors that affect students’ experiences of school bullying. In follow-up research, other methods, such as using other databases or questionnaires made by the researchers themselves, should be used to include more influence factors to analyze this topic. In addition, some factors in our study were not obviously related to school bullying, such as grade and education type of student-level, student behaviors and teacher behaviors that hindered learning, and cooperative atmosphere among students of school-level, so more rigorous field investigations may be needed [ 34 ].

Furthermore, regarding the multilevel analysis model, the analysis method of a multi-level mediation model can also be considered to further elaborate the specific operation paths of these influencing factors [ 35 ]. A multilevel mediation model can set the possible influence paths for factors that were found to have significant explanatory power based on the existing research so that all the independent variables can be included in the model at one time. It can provide more specific reference information for educational administrators and can broaden the scope of related research topics, providing more theoretical significance.

5. Conclusions

Based on the PISA 2018 survey data (including student data and school data) and using a multilevel analysis model, this study explored the impacting factors that affected school bullying. While the results are consistent with some previous studies, there are some new developments.

In the student-level variables, boys, students who have repeated grades, who are truant, and who have been late for the class in the past two weeks, and students whose economic, social, and cultural status is lower suffer from more severe school bullying. Furthermore, students who have perceived lower teacher support and parents support are more severely bullied than those who have not. Thus, when developing school bullying interventions, more attention should be paid to these students. Teachers and parents should give more emotional support to them. Additionally, school administrators, consulting teachers, and other relevant personnel should pay more attention to students. Once they find signs of bullying, appropriate treatment should be provided the first time to prevent the occurrence of the event.

In the school-level variables, students in schools with a worse discipline atmosphere and a higher level of inter-student competitive atmosphere experience greater levels of bullying. Therefore, when formulating plans to prevent school bullying at the school level, more consideration should be given to the important role of strengthening school disciplinary atmosphere and reducing the competitive atmosphere. A safe, well-ordered, positive, and friendly school environment helps protect students and make them less vulnerable to school bullying, and the establishment of such a campus environment needs the efforts of the whole society.

Acknowledgments

We sincerely appreciate the open access data provided by the PISA tests administered by OECD. We would also like to take this opportunity to express heartfelt gratitude to three anonymous reviewers for their positive suggestions and constructive comments which were very helpful in making appropriate corrections and modifications. Additionally, we appreciate the time and detail provided by each editor.

Appendix A.1. The Introduction to PISA and Descriptions of Student and School Questionnaires

The data materials of this study come from the PISA 2018 survey database. The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), implemented by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), mainly tests the levels of reading, math, and science of 15-year-old middle school students to evaluate the degree of their knowledge and skills which are necessary to fully participate in modern social and economic life. This assessment not only confirms whether students can replicate knowledge but also the extent to which they can extrapolate from what they have learned and apply it to unfamiliar situations in and outside of school, i.e., their abilities to use these knowledge and skills to deal with real-life challenges.

The first PISA test was conducted in 2000 and has been conducted every three years. In each round of PISA, students are tested in detail in one of the three core school subjects of reading, math, and science. According to this schedule, a comprehensive performance analysis is conducted every nine years for each of the three core themes. The latest data are the seventh assessment of 2018, which should be conducted in 2021, but because of the influence of COVID-19, “OECD member countries and Associates decided to postpone the PISA 2021 assessment to 2022 and the PISA 2024 assessment to 2025 to reflect post-COVID difficulties ( https://www.oecd.org/pisa ) (accessed on 15 October 2021)”. Due to the time of the implementation process, the most recent data available for analysis are still from 2018.

In addition to the tests in reading, math, and science, students also fill in a background questionnaire that collects their family background and school information, including their attitudes, personalities, and beliefs and their family, school, and learning experiences. Many issues of public concern have also been added to the survey of this project in recent years. In 2015, the survey of school bullying was added to the questionnaire. In 2018, the school bullying survey was continued, and attitudes towards school bullying was added.

Furthermore, the students’ parents, teachers, and school principals or leaders they studied are also included in the program. The school principal or leader completed a questionnaire covering the school’s management, organization, and learning environment. Therefore, the content of PISA is very broad. Since its first implementation in 2000, it has attracted the participation of more than 90 countries. A total of more than 3 million students worldwide have participated in the program which has very comprehensive educational data of students worldwide.

Appendix A.2. The Procedure of Data Collection

The PISA 2018 data comes from 75 countries and economies around the world and is aimed at 15-year-old students in grade 7 and above in educational institutions. The sampling design used for the PISA assessment is a two-stage stratified sample design.

The sampling unit of the first stage is schools with 15-year-old students. Schools were sampled systematically from a comprehensive national list of all PISA-eligible, known as the school sampling frame. This type of sampling is known as systematic probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling. Prior to their selection, schools in the sampling frame were assigned to mutually exclusive groups based on school characteristics called explicit strata. These methods were developed to improve the accuracy of sample-based estimates.

The sampling unit of the second stage is students in the sampled schools. Once schools have been selected for the sample, a full list of 15-year-olds from each school sampled will be prepared. Each country/economy participating in computer-based assessment (CBA) and Global Competency (GC) must set a target cluster size (TCS) of 42 students. Countries/economies participating in the paper-based assessment (PBA) and CBA countries/economies without GC set a TCS of 35. For lists with fewer than the target number of students, all students on the list were selected.

At least 150 schools are selected from each country, but if a participating country has fewer than 150 schools, then all schools were selected to participate. In each participating school, a predetermined number of students—the target cluster size defined earlier—were randomly selected with the same probability. In schools with a small number of students matching the target cluster size, all students are selected. Overall, a minimum of 6300 students will be required for computer-based countries and 5250 students for paper-based countries and computer-based countries.

Appendix A.3. The Statistical Criteria and Procedure of Deleting Data

In order to meet the criteria of multi-level analysis, the following two steps were carried out for the data used:

Firstly, to conduct multi-level model analysis on data, at least two levels of variables should be included, and our study contains two categories of variables: individual-level variables of students and environment-level variables of school. Different researchers proposed different sample number requirements for the variable analysis of two levels. Kreft proposed the 30/30 rule; that is, there should be at least 30 groups, and each group should have at least 30 subjects or observed values [ 36 ]. Hox suggested that there should be a minimum ratio of 50/20 as to test cross-layer interactions [ 37 ], i.e., there should be at least 50 groups with at least 20 subjects or observations in each group, and the minimum ratio of random effects is 100/10; that is, there should be at least 100 groups with at least 10 subjects or observations in each group. There are 361 groups (361 schools) in our study, most of which have about 35 students, meeting the above criteria. Then, in order to make the analysis criteria, the groups with less than 30 students (that is, the number of students in each school) are deleted (school numbers: 97500019, 97500024, 97500027, 97500074, 97500077, 97500094, 97500118, 97500147, 97500165, 97500168, 97500186, 97500204, 97500217, 97500220, 97500249, 97500253, 97500273, 97500274, 97500275, 97500280, 97500332).

Secondly, the variables of the school-level used in the study are classified into two categories [ 38 ]. One is variables based on Global Constructs, which are derived from the group levels and describe group features, such as the location and scale of the school. The other is variables based on Shared Constructs, of which group features are derived from the group members. The attitudes, perceptions, or behaviors of the group members are summarized and averaged based on groups and then integrated into group variables, such as the school discipline atmosphere perceived by the students. According to Zohar [ 39 ], in order to integrate variables at a lower level into variables at a higher level, the interrater agreement indicator Rwg(j) must be greater than 0.7, and the higher Rwg(j) is, the more appropriate it is. Therefore, after calculating the Rwg(j) of each group of each variable at the school level, delete the group with Rwg(j) less than 0.7 (school numbers: 97500043, 97500360, 97500361, 97500362). Then delete the group with missing values (school number: 975000299) (in the analysis of multilevel analysis, Level 1 is allowed to have missing values, but Level 2 cannot). Finally, a total of 11,497 student-level data and 334 school-level data were included in the final data analysis.

The code for calculating Rwg is as follows:

Appendix B.1. Outcome Variables (Y)

The outcome variables of this study are students “suffering from school bullying”, “suffering from relational bullying”, “suffering from verbal bullying”, and “suffering from physical bullying”, which are student-level variables. The PISA 2018 background questionnaire surveyed students’ experiences of bullying-related behaviors in school and measured three different types of bullying: physical bullying, relational bullying, and verbal bullying [ 40 ]. PISA 2018 asked students “During the past 12 months, how often have you had the following experiences in school? (Some experiences can also happen in social media.):

• “Other students left me out of things on purpose.” (Relational bullying),
• “Other students made fun of me.” (Verbal bullying),
• “I was threatened by other students.” (Verbal bullying),
• “Other students took away or destroyed things that belonged to me.” (Physical bullying),
• “I got hit or pushed around by other students. “ (Physical bullying),
• “Other students spread nasty rumors about me.” (Relational bullying).

If a student chooses “Never or almost never” they receive 1 score, “A few times a year” receives 2 scores, “A few times a month” receives 3 scores, and “once a week or more” receives 4 scores. Add up the scores of six items to obtain the “suffering from school bullying” variable. The score ranges from 6 to 24 scores. Similarly, add the scores of questions 1 and 6, the scores of questions 2 and 3, and the scores of questions 4 and 5, respectively, to obtain the variables of relational bullying, verbal bullying, and physical bullying. The higher the scores are, the more serious the bullying is.

Since there is not necessarily a high correlation between the six measurement items of school bullying (for example, students may be suffering from relational bullying but not physical bullying), the measurement of school bullying should be a Formative Indicator. There is still no comprehensive way to test the reliability and validity of the formative indicators now, but most scholars believe that there should not be serious multi-collinearity problems among the combined indicators, which will reduce the reliability and validity of the measurement model [ 41 , 42 ]. Based on this, we carried out the multi-collinearity test of these six items. The result showed that the VIF values reflecting the severity of the collinearity problem were between 1.552 and 2.041, which met the standard of less than 3.3, indicating that there was no multi-collinearity problem among the 6 items. It means that the reliability and validity can be guaranteed. Similarly, the VIF values of relational bullying, verbal bullying, and physical bullying were 1.484, 1.203, and 1.270, respectively, none of which was greater than 3.3, indicating that there were no multicollinearity problems for the items in these 3 different types of bullying variables. Additionally, the reliability and validity can be guaranteed.

Appendix B.2. Predictor Variables (X)

The predictors at the student-level of students are as follows:

• Gender. In this study, gender is a binary dummy variable, female = 0, male = 1. Studies found that the number of male students who suffered from school bullying was significantly higher than that of female students [ 8 , 14 ], so gender is an important factor that affects a student’s suffering from school bullying.
• Grade (continuous variable). Students are all in grades 7 to 12. Research showed that the amount of school bullying decreases with the grades increasing [ 8 , 9 , 43 ].
• Education Type (two-category dummy variable), general education = 0, vocational education = 1;
• Grade repetition (two-category dummy variable), no grade repetition = 0, grade repetition = 1;
• Truancy (two-category dummy variable), no truancy = 0, truancy = 1;
• Arriving late for class (two-category dummy variable), no lateness = 0, lateness = 1;
• Family’s economic, social, and cultural status (continuous variable). PISA uses IRT technology to synthesize ESCS according to the parents’ highest educational degree (PARED) which selects the maximum value of parents, parents’ highest occupational status (HISEI) which is assigned based on the occupational prestige index in previous research [ 44 ] and adopts the maximum value of parents, and home properties (HOMEPOS) which is based on the property condition reported by students of their family’s computers, books, musical instruments, internet, independent bedrooms, vehicles (cars), and other household assets, etc. Then, they are added up to obtain the individual overall household economic status score. Finally, the three variables of PARED, HISEI, and HOMEPOS were converted into standard Z-values and subjected to principal component analysis to obtain the ESCS value of each student. The average value of students in OECD countries is 0, and if the value is negative/positive, it is lower/higher than the average level of students in OECD countries. The higher the score is, the higher the family’s economic, social, and cultural status is.

“The teacher shows an interest in every student’s learning”;

“The teacher gives extra help when students need it”;

“The teacher helps students with their learning”;

“The teacher continues teaching until the students understand”.

The options are “Every lesson” for 1 score, “Most lessons” for 2 scores, “Some lessons” for 3 scores, and “Never or hardly ever” for 4 scores. For the sake of explanation, all the items are converted into reverse scores, and then we add these items to obtain the average for the index measurement of teacher support. The index range is 1 score to 4 scores. The higher the score is, the higher the teacher’s support for students’ learning is. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient between the 4 items is 0.864, which indicates high internal consistency reliability.

“My parents support my educational efforts and achievements”;

“My parents support me when I am facing difficulties at school”;

“My parents encourage me to be confident”.

They receive 1 score for “Strongly disagree”, 2 scores for “Disagree”, 3 scores for “Agree”, and 4 scores for “Strongly agree”. Add up the scores of the three items and take the average to obtain the parent emotional support index. The index ranges from 1 score to 4 scores, and the higher the score is, the higher the level of parents’ emotional support for students is. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient between the 3 items is 0.908, which indicates high internal consistency reliability. Relevant studies have shown that teachers’ support and parents’ support for students can influence their experiencing of school bullying [ 25 , 26 ].

At the school-level, there are two types of predictor variables: one type is the variables which are based on the overall construct, originate from the group level, and describe the characteristics of the group, including nine variables:

• School location (categorical variable): divided into town schools and city schools, town schools = 0, city schools = 1. The areas where schools are located in villages (less than 3000 people), towns (about 3000 to 15,000 people), and county towns (about 15,000 to 100,000 people) are classified as town schools, and the areas where schools are located in cities (100,000 to 1 million people) and large cities (more than 1 million people) are classified as city schools;
• School type (categorical variable): divided into public schools, which refer to schools directly or indirectly managed by the government or public educational institutions, and the leadership of the school is appointed or openly elected by the government, and private schools, which refer to schools directly or indirectly managed by non-government organizations, such as churches, unions, businesses, or other private institutions. Public schools are assigned the value of 0, and private schools as 1;
• School size (continuous variable): the school size measures the total number of students enrolled in the school. When the total number of students is larger, it means that the school is larger in size;
• Class size (continuous variable): class size refers to the average number of class members in the school, and the larger the value is, the larger the class size is;
• Student–teacher ratio (continuous variable): the ratio of the total number of students to the total number of teachers in the school, and the larger the value is, the more students are supervised by each teacher;
• Proportion of boys (continuous variable): refers to the proportion of the number of boys in school to the total number of students, and the larger the value is, the more boys in the school there are;
• Proportion of special needs students (continuous variable): refers to the sum proportion of students whose native language is not Chinese, students with special educational needs, and students who are from families with financial difficulties. The larger the value is, the more of students with special needs there are;
• Proportion of students without graduation certificate (continuous variable): refers to the proportion of the students’ number who leave the school without obtaining a graduation certificate to the total number of students. The larger the value is, the more students without a graduation certificate there are;

Similarly, the above (1) to (8) variables are not potential constructs, and they belong to the measurement of non-psychological constructs; there is no measurement error, so there is no need to discuss their reliabilities and validities

• 9. Student behaviors and teacher behaviors that hinder learning at school (continuous variable): in the school questionnaire, we learned about student behaviors and teacher behaviors that hinder student learning by asking “In your school, to what extent is the learning of students hindered by the following phenomena?”

Student behaviors that hinder student learning include six items:

“Student truancy”,

“Student skipping classes”,

“Student lacking respect for teacher”,

“Students’ use of alcohol or illegal drugs”,

“Student intimidating or bullying other students”,

“Students not being attentive”.

Teacher behaviors that hinder students’ learning include five items:

“Teachers not meeting individual students’ needs”,

“Teachers’ absenteeism”,

“Staff resisting change”,

“Teachers being too strict with students”,

“Teachers not being well prepared for classes”.

If students choose “Not at all” they receive 1 score, “Very little” receives 2 scores, “To some extent” receives 3 scores, and “A lot” receives 4 scores. The higher the score is, the greater the impact that hinders students’ learning is.

Because there are not necessarily correlations between these behaviors of students and teachers (e.g., students who skip classes are not necessarily disrespectful to teachers, and similarly, teachers who are reluctant to change are not necessarily insufficiently prepared), the measurement models of the two variables are also combinedmeasurement index (Formative Indicator), and their reliabilities and validities are still tested by the existence of multi-collinearity. The multi-collinearity diagnosis results of the variable of student behaviors that hinder learning show that the first two items (Student truancy, Student skipping classes) have certain collinearity (VIF = 15.605 and 14.251), so the first item is deleted, and the sum scores of the five items left behind are used as the measurement of student behaviors that hinder learning. Then, the multi-collinearity diagnosis is carried out again, and results show that the VIF values of the 5 items are between 1.860 and 8.024. Although the VIF values of some items exceeds 3.3, according to Hair’s suggestion [ 45 ], as long as the VIF is below 10, it is still an acceptable range, indicating that there is no collinearity problem, and the reliability and validity of the measurement model can be guaranteed. Therefore, the variable of student behaviors that hinder learning ranges from 5 to 20 scores. Similarly, the multi-collinearity diagnostic results of the variable of teacher behaviors that hinder learning show that the VIF values of the 5 items are between 1.881 and 4.179, which is also in an acceptable range, indicating that there is no collinearity problem between these items. The reliability and validity of the measurement model is good. The variable of teacher behaviors that hinder learning also ranges from 5 to 20 scores.

Another type of school-level variables are those based on shared constructs, including three variables as follows:

“Students don’t listen to what the teacher says”;

“There is noise and disorder”;

“The teacher has to wait a long time for students to quiet down “;

“Students cannot work well”;

“Students don’t start working for a long time after the lesson begins”.

Students choosing “Every lesson” receive 1 score, “Most lessons” for 2 scores, “Some lessons” for 3 scores, and “Never or hardly ever” for 4 scores. Add the scores of the five items and take the average to obtain the disciplinary atmosphere index. The index ranges from 1 score to 4 scores. The higher the score is, the better the disciplinary atmosphere of the student’s class is. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the 5 items is 0.894, which has high internal consistency reliability. Then, the scores of each student in each school are summed and averaged to synthesize the school-level disciplinary atmosphere.

“Students seem to value competition/cooperation”,

“It seems that students are competing/cooperating with each other”,

“Students seem to share the feeling that competing/cooperating with each other is important”,

“Students feel that they are being compared with others”/“Students feel that they are encouraged to cooperate with others”.

The answer is “Not at all true” for 1 score, “Slightly true” for 2 scores, “Very true” for 3 scores, and “Extremely true” for 4 scores. The index ranges from 1 to 4 scores. The higher the score is, the higher the perceived level of competitive/cooperative atmosphere is. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient between the 4 items of competition is 0.813 and of cooperation is 0.934, which have high internal consistency reliability. Then, the scores of each student in each school are added and averaged to synthesize the index of competitive/cooperative atmosphere among students at the school level.

Appendix C.1. The Formula of Model I

Level 1: suffering from school bullying (relational bullying, verbal bullying, and physical bullying) ij = β 0j + γ ij .

Level 2: β 0j = γ 00 + U 0j .

Appendix C.2. The Formula of Model II

Level 1: suffering from school bullying (relational bullying, verbal bullying, and physical bullying) ij = β 0j + β 1j (gender ij ) + β 2j (grade ij ) + β 3j (education type ij ) + β 4j (grade repetition ij ) + β 5j (truancy ij ) + β 6j (arriving late for class ij ) + β 7j (ESCS ij ) + β 8j (teacher support ij ) + β 9j (parent support ij ) + γ ij .

Level 2: β 0j = γ 00

    β 1j = γ 10

    β 2j = γ 20 + U 2j

    β 3j = γ 30

    β 4j = γ 40

    β 5j = γ 50

    β 6j = γ 60

    β 7j = γ 70

    β 8j = γ 80 + U 8j

    β 9j = γ 90 + U 9j

In the above formula, γ 10 , γ 20 , γ 30 , γ 40 , γ 50 , γ 60 , γ 70 , γ 80 , and γ 90 represent the estimated parameters of the student-level variables of students (gender, grade, education type, grade repetition, truancy, arriving late for class, ESCS, teacher support, and parent support, respectively) to student suffering from school bullying, relational bullying, verbal bullying, and physical bullying.

Appendix C.3. The Formula of Model III

Level 2: β 0j = γ 00 + γ 01 (school location j ) + γ 02 (school type j ) + γ 03 (school size j ) + γ 04 (class size j ) + γ 05 (student–teacher ratio j ) + γ 06 (proportion of boys j ) + γ 07 (proportion of special needs students j ) + γ 08 (proportion of students without graduation certificates j ) + γ 09 (student behaviors that hinder learning j ) + γ 010 (teacher behaviors that hinder learning j ) + γ 011 (school discipline atmosphere j ) + γ 012 (competitive atmosphere among students j ) + γ 013 (cooperative atmosphere among students j ) + U 0j .

In the above formula, γ 01 , γ 02 , γ 03 , γ 04 , γ 05 , γ 06 , γ 07 , γ 08 , γ 09 , γ 010 , γ 011 , γ 012 , and γ 013 represent the estimated parameters of school-level variables to student suffering from school bullying, relational bullying, verbal bullying, and physical bullying, which are school location, school type, school size, class size, student–teacher ratio, proportion of boys, proportion of special needs students, proportion of students without graduation certificates, student behaviors that hinder learning, teacher behaviors that hinder learning, school discipline atmosphere, competitive atmosphere among students, and cooperative atmosphere among students, respectively.

Multilevel analysis results of the influencing factors of students suffering from rational bullying.

Multilevel analysis results of the influencing factors of students suffering from verbal bullying.

Multilevel analysis results of the influencing factors of students suffering from physical bullying.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by key discipline construction project of Liupanshui Normal University, grant number LPSSYZDPYXK201704, and scientific and technological innovation team project in teacher education of Liupanshui Normal University, grant number LPSSYKJTD201603.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.-J.W.; methodology, Y.-J.W. and I.-H.C.; software, Y.-J.W.; formal analysis, Y.-J.W.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.-J.W.; writing—review and editing, Y.-J.W. and I.-H.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to openness and availability of the data. The data of this study were taken from the public data provided by PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), which is easily available on this website https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/ (accessed on 15 October 2021), and is not collected by the researchers. PISA measures 15-year-olds’ ability to use their reading, mathematics and science knowledge and skills to meet real-life challenges. On the webpage, PISA said that “The PISA database contains the full set of responses from individual students, school principals, teachers and parents. These files will be of use to statisticians and professional researchers who would like to undertake their own analysis of the PISA 2018 data”. So, our research used the secondary data, which everyone can access on Internet.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.